Axel wrote:
> I don't know about you Axel, but until I see a better
alternative,
> I'll personally be inflating Fedora X.Y to rh(X+10)Y in the release
> tag of packages I maintain. The only other alternative is to simply
> increment Epoch for everything, which is yucky, yucky.
Exaclty. As packagers we have been painfully tought not to use epochs
unless WW3 is about to emerge.
I'll also go with your suggestion, Rex. I'd call it the "it's written
rh10, but it is pronounced Fedora Core 1" idiom ...
Hmm, on further consideration, I think I'll probably cave in on using rh10
and instead go with fedora's guidelines, but only because I desperately
want the packages I maintain to continue to be provided by fedora (and my
packages will most likely be rejected if I don't "follow the rules"). In
doing so, I'll still have to change my once relatively clean rpm macros
from:
%define rhversion %(perl -pe '/(\\d+)\\.?(\\d)?/; $_="$1".($2||0)' \
/etc/redhat-release)
%define fedora_release .fdr.1.rh%{rhversion}
...
Release: 0%{fedora_release}
to something conditional like:
%if "%(grep "Red Hat Linux" /etc/redhat-release )" !=
"%{nil}"
# legacy Red Hat Linux releases
%define rhrelease %(perl -pe '/(\\d+)\\.?(\\d+)?/; $_="$1".($2||0)' \
/etc/redhat-release )
%define release_tag .fdr.%{fedora_release}.rh%{rhrelease}
%else
# Fedora Core, etc...
%define rhrelease %(perl -pe '/(\\d+)\\.?(\\d+)?/; \
$_="$1".(defined($2)&&".$2")' /etc/redhat-release )
%define release_tag .fdr.%{fedora_release}.%{rhrelease}
%endif
...
Release: 0%{release_tag}
*Sigh*.
-- Rex