Hi all,
currently I'm working on Kbarcode, which is under review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001799 The current version is 3.0.0b3. No problem so far, but the next one will probably be the final 3.0.0. This way I don't get a proper upgrade path. Just tested with a dummy package versioned as 3.0.0b2 which I tried to update with 3.0.0:
# rpm -Uvh mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm Preparing... ################################# [100%] package mario-3.0.0b3-1.fc19.noarch (which is newer than mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch) is already installed
What to do in this case? I would add
Obsoletes: %{name} = 3.0.0b3
Is this OK or have to do some other fixes? Maybe I could change the package version of the current beta release to 2.9.99?
Best Regards, Mario
On 11/24/2013 07:52 PM, Mario Blättermann wrote:
Hi all,
currently I'm working on Kbarcode, which is under review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001799 The current version is 3.0.0b3. No problem so far, but the next one will probably be the final 3.0.0. This way I don't get a proper upgrade path. Just tested with a dummy package versioned as 3.0.0b2 which I tried to update with 3.0.0:
# rpm -Uvh mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm Preparing... ################################# [100%] package mario-3.0.0b3-1.fc19.noarch (which is newer than mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch) is already installed
What to do in this case? I would add
Obsoletes: %{name} = 3.0.0b3
Is this OK or have to do some other fixes? Maybe I could change the package version of the current beta release to 2.9.99?
Dealing with (non-numeric) pre-release versions is explained in the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
- Panu -
Am Sonntag, 24. November 2013, 20:09:17 schrieb Panu Matilainen:
On 11/24/2013 07:52 PM, Mario Blättermann wrote:
Hi all,
currently I'm working on Kbarcode, which is under review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001799 The current version is 3.0.0b3. No problem so far, but the next one will probably be the final 3.0.0. This way I don't get a proper upgrade path. Just tested with a dummy package versioned as 3.0.0b2 which I tried to update with 3.0.0:
# rpm -Uvh mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm Preparing... ################################# [100%]
package mario-3.0.0b3-1.fc19.noarch (which is newer than
mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch) is already installed
What to do in this case? I would add
Obsoletes: %{name} = 3.0.0b3
Is this OK or have to do some other fixes? Maybe I could change the package version of the current beta release to 2.9.99?
Dealing with (non-numeric) pre-release versions is explained in the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
Thanks for the link! Now I'm using the following in my spec:
Release: 1.b3%{?dist}
The update with just 1{?dist} as usual can be installed properly.
Best Regards, Mario
On Sunday, 24 November 2013 at 19:42, Mario Blättermann wrote:
Am Sonntag, 24. November 2013, 20:09:17 schrieb Panu Matilainen:
On 11/24/2013 07:52 PM, Mario Blättermann wrote:
Hi all,
currently I'm working on Kbarcode, which is under review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001799 The current version is 3.0.0b3. No problem so far, but the next one will probably be the final 3.0.0. This way I don't get a proper upgrade path. Just tested with a dummy package versioned as 3.0.0b2 which I tried to update with 3.0.0:
# rpm -Uvh mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm Preparing... ################################# [100%]
package mario-3.0.0b3-1.fc19.noarch (which is newer than
mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch) is already installed
What to do in this case? I would add
Obsoletes: %{name} = 3.0.0b3
Is this OK or have to do some other fixes? Maybe I could change the package version of the current beta release to 2.9.99?
Dealing with (non-numeric) pre-release versions is explained in the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
Thanks for the link! Now I'm using the following in my spec:
Release: 1.b3%{?dist}
The update with just 1{?dist} as usual can be installed properly.
This is still wrong. You should be using the pre-release scheme, i.e.: Release: 0.1.b3%{?dist}
Regards, Dominik
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org