I just took over a package and found this package has Epoch tag, but
its value is 0. I'm not sure if I can remove it?
Always playing in Fedora Project
There is at least one (likely more) scripts in use for doing mass
rebuilds that are incorrectly bumping the release value. I noticed this
before and brought it up in IRC but didn't file a bug then.
What's going on is that the script is incrementing the release by 1 but
is not rounding off the value. So, for example, from one package I
maintain (perl-qpid_proton) I see the following in the %changelog:
* Sun Aug 04 2013 Fedora Release Engineering
* <rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> - 0.4-3.1
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jul 22 2013 Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-2.1
- Perl 5.18 rebuild
* Mon Apr 1 2013 Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-1.1
- Changed the qpid-proton dependency to qpid-proton-c.
- Changed the qpid-proton-devel dependency to qpid-proton-c-devel.
* Fri Mar 1 2013 Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com> - 0.4-1
- Rebased on Proton 0.4.
The scripts doing these mass rebuilds ought to be doing something lik:
release = floor(current_release + 1)
rather than just bumping by 1.
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com>
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
I was searching around a bit on the wiki and in list archives, but
without any luck, so asking here.
He have several dozens of packages (mostly Ruby packages) prepared for
our projects (Foreman, Katello, Pulp, Candlepin and few others).
We already submitted and maintain some packages in Fedora, but our plan
is to make our SPEC files compliant and start submitting all of them
over the time.
The only issue is we need to keep our SCL macros (maily scl_prefix and
few others) in our packages, because as you can see  it is pretty
inconvenient to maintain those as a separate branches or patch sets (the
scl_prefix is spread all over the SPEC file causing lots of conflicts).
I have been trying to find some information about SCL macros and if
these are allowed in SPEC files in Fedora. We are willing to submit
packages and maintain them of course, but before we start pushing review
request, I would like to be clear if this is not prohibited from Fedora.
Of course, I understand SCL is not allowed as described here , but
the issue I am writing about is only about having some macros in our
SPEC files which are left unexpanded in Fedora Koji of course.
The main drawback is readability which is worse in this case. On the
other hand, if unexpanded macros are not prohibited, SCL should make no
difference. If they are, I'd like to start conversation about
possibility to make an exception for this case.
I would like to read your opinions about that and if there is no
document allowing these macros, I'd like to ask to help me to create
one. We need an official document which can be used during reviews in
case there are doubts about the SCL macros.
Thank you for your help.
 - http://bit.ly/13rzLFF (example of a SCL enabled Ruby package)
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SoftwareCollections
Lukas "lzap" Zapletal
irc: lzap #theforeman