Inconsistent package tags
Brandon Holbrook
fedora at theholbrooks.org
Tue Jun 26 14:22:33 UTC 2007
Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:04 +0930, n0dalus wrote:
>
>> On 24 Jun 2007 20:31:22 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> n> 369 (216) packages with fc8 in the release tag (shouldn't we be
>>> n> using f8?)
>>>
>>> No, it's fc8. f8 would sort less than fc7, causing badness.
>>>
>> I know, but its still undesirable to need to put 'fc' in every package
>> of every release from this point on. Could packages be moved over to
>> f8 by using release numbers, epochs or some other rpm hack?
>>
>
> No.
>
>
Couldn't we tag all packages built *from this point on* with f8? New
builds have to bump the EVR anyway, so 2.f8 is still greater than
1.fc7. The whole "f8 is rpm-less than fc7" argument is only valid if
you assume no other changes to a package's EVR when being rebuilt, but
AFAIK there's never been a package rebuilt in fedoraland where the
disttag was the only thing that was bumped. Granted, that means there
would be a mix of 'fc' and 'f' packages, but that's no more tacky than
our current fc6+fc7 mix.
-Brandon
More information about the devel
mailing list