On disttags (was: Choosing rpm-release for fc1 and fdr add-on rpms)

Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com
Tue May 18 19:01:22 UTC 2004

On May 18, 2004, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:

>> I suppose this is going to result in foo-1.2-7.fc3.1, foo-1.2-9.fc4.1
>> and foo-1.2-10.fc5 (rawhide), all of them containing the fix.  You
>> can't just use the version tag to identify packages containing the
>> fix.

> If the buggy version was foo-1.2-7, then the fixed is

> foo-1.2-8.fc3
> foo-1.2-8.fc4
> foo-1.2-8.fc4.89.105

All of the above had the bug and have to be fixed, and -8 won't do it
for them.

> The idea is that trivial changes like rebuilds don't even need to bumb
> the release tag (or the buildid component).

That's good.  But it still doesn't cover the case of patches being
added to the package, which is what got foo-1.2 bumped from -7 to -9
between FC3 and FC4.

Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}

More information about the devel mailing list