[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560

--- Comment #10 from Todd Zullinger <tmz at pobox.com> 2012-02-16 02:03:17 EST ---
I just can't see how manufacturing a version that never existed makes sense. 
There was never a ruby-shadow-2.1.1.  If someone does resume development of
ruby-shadow and it is desirable to put it back in fedora, that's why we have
epoch.  If someone puts it back in without coordinating with the maintainers of
rubygem-ruby-shadow, then we'll have problems no matter what -- and they are
not problems that guidelines can solve. :)

I don't see where the guidelines suggest (literally or in spirit) that a
non-existent version (2.1.1) should be used.  They clearly use the last version
of foo, the package being replaced.  All that is incremented is the the release
field.

I believe that using 2.1.1 is exactly the sort of thing that is discouraged
when the text says "$obsEVR is an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple arranged so
that there is a clean upgrade path, **but without gratuitously polluting the
version space upwards**" (emphasis mine).

If we were to use the EVR from the new package, then it would be < 2.1.2-1, if
anything.  But I don't believe that's what the guidelines suggest or imply.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.