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

Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune at
Mon Nov 4 10:41:17 UTC 2013

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:09:28 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>> > 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.
> The linked spec is an example where rpmdev-bumpspec does _not_ know
> what to do because of the %rhel macro in the Release tag. As a result,
> the tag will be bumped at the very right side only.

I've tested it yesterday and the baserelease macro was bumped (not the
actual line with the Release tag). I've done this to fix the previous
%{?rhel:0.}5%{?dist} originally becoming %{?rhel:0.}5%{?dist}.1 (the
".X bumped at the end of the release" behavior as described previously).

>> This is what I've done [1] for a package to handle the epel '0.'
>> prefix mentioned in the guidelines.
> Where to find that in the guidelines?
> Such a prefix sounds questionable and is news to me (not being an EPEL dev).
>> Dridi
>> [1]
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at
> Fedora Code of Conduct:

More information about the devel mailing list