[atomic-wg] Issue #254 `Label/comment for primary RPM?`

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
In the 3/10/2017 VFAD, we decided that VERSION would be 0 pending updating FLIBS to
support automatically pulling the version from the "primary RPM" in the
container.

However, we are not currently collecting information from maintainers about which RPM is
the primary one.

Should we have a label or structured comment, required, which contains this information?

Ref #235
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@maxamillion @dustymabe 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
it could be derived from the name of the container (i.e. the container should be named
what the primary rpm name is), but I can see cases where we might want to override this.
I'm +1 to being explicit and requiring some sort of identifying information, but maybe
only if it is different than the name of the conatiner? 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I think the number of cases where the name of the container is a truncated, or extended,
name of the package is going to be fairly large.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
It also needs to take into account that sometimes the field will be "N/A" for
containers which don't correlate well to a package version number.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
summary: we don't know what we want to use as identifying information right now so we
can't draft guidelines just yet. Waiting on the outcome of investigation in #249 for
that. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Anything which doesn't involve a field populated by the maintainer is going to fail.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254

[Josh Berkus]

jberkus added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
No updates at this time, waiting on infra availability.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/254