hi all,
i would like to propose that we change the versioning of spin-kickstarts, for instance the version in f22 would always be 22 then use the rpm release field 0.X for prerelease builds and whole numbers for GA builds so the build just done for f22 GA would have been spin-kickstarts-22-1.fc22 anyone have any strong thoughts?
Dennis
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:13:09PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
i would like to propose that we change the versioning of spin-kickstarts, for instance the version in f22 would always be 22 then use the rpm release field 0.X for prerelease builds and whole numbers for GA builds so the build just done for f22 GA would have been spin-kickstarts-22-1.fc22 anyone have any strong thoughts?
Makes sense to me.
(Heh. It's not at 1.0 yet, under the current scheme.)
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 15:13:09 -0500, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
hi all,
i would like to propose that we change the versioning of spin-kickstarts, for instance the version in f22 would always be 22 then use the rpm release field 0.X for prerelease builds and whole numbers for GA builds so the build just done for f22 GA would have been spin-kickstarts-22-1.fc22 anyone have any strong thoughts?
I'm not opposed to removing the leading zero, but I think we still need to separate updates that happen to upstream and rebuilds done for other reasons (most commonly mass rebuilds) done without having an update from upstream.
So you'd have releases like 22.1-1.fc22 and 22.2-1.fc22 and occasionally sonething like 22.2-2.fc22.
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 15:13:09 -0500, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
hi all,
i would like to propose that we change the versioning of spin-kickstarts, for instance the version in f22 would always be 22 then use the rpm release field 0.X for prerelease builds and whole numbers for GA builds so the build just done for f22 GA would have been spin-kickstarts-22-1.fc22 anyone have any strong thoughts?
I'm not opposed to removing the leading zero, but I think we still need to separate updates that happen to upstream and rebuilds done for other reasons (most commonly mass rebuilds) done without having an update from upstream.
So you'd have releases like 22.1-1.fc22 and 22.2-1.fc22 and occasionally sonething like 22.2-2.fc22.
I think do it exactly like fedora-release and fedora-repos
Have it as 0.x prior to GA. So 22-0.1 22-0.2 etc and then GA it becomes 22-1 and any post releases, maybe that are needed for image respins etc, because 22-2 and so on
Peter
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:02:33 +0100, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
I think do it exactly like fedora-release and fedora-repos
Have it as 0.x prior to GA. So 22-0.1 22-0.2 etc and then GA it becomes 22-1 and any post releases, maybe that are needed for image respins etc, because 22-2 and so on
That is going to result in the upstream tar ball names not matching the release names used in Fedora. We can certainly do that to make the names in Fedora simpler, but that isn't the normal practice for packages.
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Dennis Gilmore -
Matthew Miller -
Peter Robinson