Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2014-01-15)

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Jan 16 19:12:42 UTC 2014


On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 07:39 +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> ===================================
> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-01-15)
> ===================================
> 
> 
> Meeting started by mmaslano at 18:00:34 UTC. The full logs are available
> at
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-01-15/fesco.2014-01-15-18.00.log.html
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Meeting summary
> ---------------
> * init process  (mmaslano, 18:01:02)
> 
> * 1197 Procedure for suggesting/approving different Products and/or WGs?
>    (mmaslano, 18:01:58)
>    * ACTION: mattdm will create proposal for spins/secondary products
>      (mmaslano, 18:12:00)
>    * ACTION: jreznik will help mattdm wiht proposal (invite interested
>      people...)  (mmaslano, 18:15:44)
> 
> * #1218 Before this starts causing us in QA serious headache there
>    should be manatory description on copr repos  (mmaslano, 18:18:55)
>    * AGREED: proposal about adding dist tag didn't pass (+4,-5,0)
>      (mmaslano, 18:44:11)
>    * AGREED: interested parties work with copr maintainer for vendor tag
>      and description changes out of band (+5,-0,0)  (mmaslano, 18:52:33)

So, in the discussion of this, the following was presented as an
obstacle:

18:31:13 <notting> Requires: foo > 1.0-1.%{release}
18:31:22 <notting> 1.0-1.fc20.copr *satisfies* that

Well, sure. But as mitr noted in passing - and everyone seemed to ignore
- that's a terrible conditional in all sorts of ways:
foo-1.0-1.%(nextrelease) satisfies that conditional too, even though
it's probably identical to foo-1.0.1.%{release} .

Does anyone have a case where %{release}.copr can cause problems that
can't *also* be caused just by the same build having been done for
multiple %{release}s?

In the cited case, I'd use:

Requires: foo >= 1.0-2

or something similar. In general, isn't it pretty much universally
accepted that you should try *really hard* to avoid the disttag being
significant to your conditionals because it's just fundamentally
unreliable to use it?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net



More information about the devel mailing list