-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 00:02:20 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
Please Michael, stop misquoting me, it has become a bad habit of
yours. While it definitely is a kludge, you (deliberately?) skip my
main concerns about this scheme being broken by all rpm versions up to
this January, making this idiom unsuitable for "Fedora Legacy".
Rest assured, I'm out of this thread. I'm back when there are serious
attempts at developing a versioning scheme for Fedora Legacy, such as
using %{release}.0.X.Y (where 0.X.Y is e.g. 0.7.3 for Valhalla and 0.9
for Shrike), instead of trying to find a compromise for current 3rd
party repositories.
My final comments here. You're complicating matters. I'm aware that
for older versions of RPM (<= 4.1 or 4.1.1, I don't know),
rh73 < 1fdr *and* 1fdr < rh73
so that would be a problem for upgrade chanells which don't update RPM
to a better version. But where has been defined that Fedora Legacy
will carry packages with rh* disttags? Fedora Legacy has other
problems that must be considered. Obviously, packages for a Fedora
Legacy supported distribution must have a higher version than all
previous packages (E:V-R based version comparison) for that
distribution *and* all packages of older distributions. At the same
time, Fedora Legacy update packages for one distribution may not have
a higher version than stock packages of newer distributions, so the
upgrade path is not disturbed. You can only avoid that with backported
fixes, which keep the V in E:V-R below what is shipped with later
distributions, or if you break upgradability. Whether or not that may
be necessary also depends on the feasibility of backporting security
fixes in time.
- --
Michael, who doesn't reply to top posts and complete quotes anymore.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/gfct0iMVcrivHFQRAhZGAJ9uiKdPn/AHQOq8kfvlFkfC02dKuwCeJRUh
JMxNXPezUHhCuAr5XZcYnW0=
=Uomw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----