glusterfs and hekafs release number for f16 and rawhide; systemd switch-over

[Niels de Vos]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 09:01:33AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> 
> Up to now the glusterfs and hekafs versions and releases have been the 
> same for f16 and rawhide, i.e.: glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.rpm, 
> glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc17.rpm, hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.fc16.rpm, and 
> hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.fc17.rpm.
> 
> I did that because the source, thus far, is exactly the same for both 
> f16 and rawhide. In f16 and rawhide both glusterfs and hekafs used sysv 
> init.d scripts.
> 
> Now for rawhide I'm going to switch to systemd. I know I can't switch to 
> systemd for f16, so the question is, what scheme should I used for the 
> release numbering?

If you are planning only minor updates in F-16, you can probably use the
description on "Minor release bummps for old branches" [1]. The result
would than be something like:

glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.rpm - base version with sysv-init
glusterfs-3.2.4-2.x86_64.fc17.rpm - updated version with systemd-unit

Bugfixes for F-16 can be done as patches/backports and the new nvr would
be glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.1. For F-17/Rawhide it would just be in
the new upstream version, or updated release as in
glusterfs-3.2.4-3.x86_64.fc17.


Personally I would favour this, but it will involve maintaining a
seperate branch for the sysv-init version of the package. The main
advantage is that the F-17/Rawhide spec will be kept simple, and there
is no need to remove the %if statements once there is no sysv-init
version available anymore. It will be impractical if you are planning
big(ger) updates that would need a real version bump.

Cheers,
Niels

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches