Choosing rpm-release for fc1 and fdr add-on rpms

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 10:11, Warren Togami wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am planing to release a couple of rpms which are supposed to be add-on
> > packages to Fedora Core and/or Fedora Extras.
> > 
> > What is the current convention on choosing rpm release tags for such
> > packages to provide co-existence for such kind of packages?
> > 
> > AFAIS, from freshrpms, livna, atrpms none there doesn't seem to exist
> > such kind of convention. Conversely, all seem to be designed "to take
> > over the system". 
> > 
> 
> http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy
> http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines
> If you follow these rules you generally will not clash with FC packages, 
> but it takes a little practice to get it right.  The other volunteers 
> will help you if you make mistakes, so don't worry.  It would help if 
> you submit your packages to fedora.us QA just so other people know it 
> exists.  (That process will NOT become easier when the SCM goes online, 
> because only trusted & proven developers will have any checkin access at 
> all, while everyone else must earn that trust through demonstrated hard 
> work and dedication.)
> 
Some background info: I have a local repository of locally built RPMs, I
am considering some of them for submission to Fedora.Us/Extra/Legacy and
some of them for submission to 3rd party repositories, e.g. because some
of them are of too little general interest. 

Therefore I want to choose these rpms release tags in such a way that
they "play it nicely" with Fedora Core and Fedora Extras.

I.e. I want choose my rpm tags in such a way, that Fedora
Core/Updates/Extras/Legacy packages shall replace my rpms once Fedora
Core/Updates/Extras/Legacy should release the same packages.

> I assume you mean by "taking over the system" you mean replacing 
> packages that are within the core distribution?
I meant co-existence of packages from different origins (mixing Fedora
Core and Extras with 3rd party sources of RPMs).

>   fedora.us and livna 
> does not do that at all.
Theoretical example: Suppose the legal situation of a package changes,
and you would consider to move this package from Livna to Fedora Extras.
How would you deal with that?

ATM, Fedora/Stable uses 0.fdr.x.1, Livna uses 0.lvn.y.1.

RPM-wise, a package using 0.lvn* will always be greater than a package
using 0.fdr*. 
Now, you could increase the Epoch for the fdr package - Not necessarily
a good solution, IMHO.
You could increase the actual "release number" (use 1.fdr.*) - AFAIU,
this would contradict the Fedora.US versioning policy, because it would
cause problems with Fedora Core.

>   The other 3rd party repositories are 
> controlled by single persons and they generally do whatever they want 
> unilaterally, for better or worse.
That's why I am looking for "the better solution".
Or to bring it to the point: Which release-tag do you (Fedora US)
recommend for my purposes?

Ralf