Package EVR problems in Fedora 2008-06-10
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Wed Jun 11 15:04:59 UTC 2008
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:24:36PM -0400, buildsys at fedoraproject.org wrote:
> F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.1.1a-4.fc8 > 0:0.1.1a-3.fc9)
> F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.6.0-4.fc8 > 0:0.6.0-3.fc9)
> F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.9.6-4.fc8 > 0:0.9.6-3.fc9)
Is this wrong?
I'm afraid to say that a lot of packages I have do this. The reason
is that I develop and build packages on Rawhide, then backport them to
F-8. However when backporting to F-8 I have to bump the release
number up, typically because I have to add an ExcludeArch: ppc64[*]
for F-8, but may be because of other packing twiddling too.
I wasn't aware that there had to be a strict increase in package
numbering between branches. (In fact, I wasn't aware that Fedora even
allowed updating between Fedora releases).
[*] Although I suppose we could backport David Woodhouses
OCaml-on-ppc64 patch to F-8, but that wouldn't fix the packages which
are already like this.
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
More information about the devel