rawhide report: 20070108 changes

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Dave Jones schrieb:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 06:55:12PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>  > Dave Jones schrieb:
>  > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:15:10AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  > >  > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 02:22, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>  > >  > > If I would review the kernel for the extras merge I'd say "fix this".
>  > >  > > But I suspect davej won't like to call the kernels 2.6.20 (e.g.
>  > >  > > 2.6.20-1.2906.rc4.fc7 for example) before they are actually 2.6.20.
>  > >  > > This will be one of the problem areas we'll probably have to deal with
>  > >  > > when it comes to reviewing Core packages for the Extras merge.
>  > >  > Personally, I'm all for giving the kernel a pass on this and some of the 
>  > >  > other... interesting things in the spec.  That is, unless the reviewer not 
>  > >  > only complains about something in the spec, but also produces a viable rework 
>  > >  > of what the spec is trying to accomplish.  The kernel is one of our speshul 
>  > >  > packages that really does need some special consideration.
>  > > Really.  And if you want to do something useful with the kernel package,
>  > > there's no shortage of real bugs that need fixing.
>  > 
>  > There are guidelines for packaging. They contain a standard for naming
>  > pre-release packages. The kernel package clearly is violating it as the
>  > version of the kernel is in fact 2.6.20-rc4, but the %version is 2.6.19.
>  > Can we agree so far?
> 
> I don't consider rc's as released versions. The package version number
> should state the latest released version that package is based on.
> If we were to go down this route, we'd have to contend with the
> other upstream naming conventions too.
> look at the combinations we have :- 2.6.19, 2.6.19-git1, 2.6.19-rc1, 2.6.19.1,
> 2.6.19-rc1-git1, 2.6.19.1-rc1

We have rules to make it work; see:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a

CU
thl