bad use of "Dist Tag" in some packages of rawhide

Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune at
Mon Nov 4 10:09:28 UTC 2013

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:39:38 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> >> BAD use of %{dist} tag(75):
>> >> ==========================
>> >> afpfs-ng-0.8.1-13.fc21.3.src.rpm 13.fc21.3
>> > [and many similar examples]
>> >
>> > (the next paragraph right after the one you linked to).
>> _rawhide_ is not an *old branch* . And it never was.
>> To have {?dist}.X in rawhide should be impossible.
>> It breaks the laws of thermodynamics!!
> It looks ugly, but it's harmless.
> It's the package maintainer's responsibility to _reset_ the Release tag in
> Rawhide when upgrading the Version or when touching the package.
> With the example of afpfs-ng, look what has happened here:
> Two minor release bumps have been kept, have survived several mass-rebuilds,
> because the bump-script does not mess with the Release tag, and even in
> a later update by a packager a week ago, the ".3" has not been dropped.
> If anyone feels like adding an option to rpmdev-bumpspec, that one could
> attempt at cleaning up Release tags -- but note that even least-significant
> stuff right of the dist tag could be wanted by the package owner(s), so
> simply dropping it might be wrong. E.g. sometimes it's a patchlevel number,
> with no "pl" prefix.

I took a quick look at the code because I had a related issue, and
found that rpmdev-bumpspec offers a workaround. If the release tag is
too complicated, you can extract the "bumpable" part into a
'baserelease' macro.

This is what I've done [1] for a package to handle the epel '0.'
prefix mentioned in the guidelines.



> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at
> Fedora Code of Conduct:

More information about the devel mailing list