Question regarding dist-git aesthetics with branches

[Hans Ulrich Niedermann]

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:55 +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
> > On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:

> > > Using names like f13, el5, and so forth would also keep dist-git 
> > > consistent with git branch naming conventions.  If we were to do 
> > > something like that we might as well just use the value of %{dist}.
> > 
> > That was going to be my next question, although that would bring back
> > the "c" in fc13 and fc14 since that's what the dist value is.  We could
> > bite the bullet and change the dist value to remove the c, and just
> > manually keep track of making sure that builds on older releases won't
> > be "newer" than builds on the newer branches.  not sure if we want to go
> > through that pain at this point.
> 
> Don't we have a (few) mass rebuilds in front of us before F-14 anyway?
> gold and similar stuff? That would increase the R of N-V-R anyway, so we
> could switch %{dist} from fc14 to f14 at the same time for probably the
> majority of packages.
> 
> Oh. Darn. We still need to make sure that *.fc12 and *.fc13 packages do
> not have the same N-V-R modulo %{dist} as F14 has, until F13 is EOLed,
> i.e. until F15 comes out. That still sounds ugly. Well, all of that is
> ugly regarding the "c", whatever we do or do not do.

Ugly potential fix for this ugly issue: Patch rpm and yum to compare
N-V-R.fc13 exactly like N-V-R.f13, and carry that patch until F-15.