[repo-coord] Re: Versioning proposal, please comment (was: disttag -- repotag)

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:25:31PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > And what about the arguments about disttags starting with letters
> > mangling with the buildtag? If you want distepochs, you should choose
> > letters like "a.el2", "b.el3".
> 
> In case of letters in the release-tafg (which we stress to avoidÃ) the 
> release number has to be incremented too.
> 
> The packager has to make sure the release-tag is always higher than the 
> previous release-tag. Eg. 1.a -> 1.b -> 2

Not sure that I followed, shouldn't release tags (meaning what comes
before the disttag, I usually call this the buildid to not confuse it
with the total rpm release tag) be always bumped up when new packages
are built?

The issue with disttags staring with disgits is that they will get
mixed with the buildid. E.g. you cannot have foo-1.2.3-1 and
foo-1.2.3-1.1 as names before adding disttag/repotag, because the
disttags will change the rpm ordering.

So you either need to start with letters or you need to prohibit
changes in number of segments before the disttags. At least RH uses
dotted release tags quite often, and for backports of RH's foo-1.2.3-4
in rawhide I am usually picking foo-1.2.3-3.99 (to allow upgrades to
rawhide/FC3 to override the backported packages).

Fixing the number of segments before the disttag is therefore not very
good. Having the disttag start with letters (whether with or without
distepoch) fixes this in 99.9% of all cases (the remaining ones are
buildids finishing with letters, not that I have seen any, but
theoretically possible).

> > What speaks against the "fc" for all tag? Even fedora.us people had
> > been advokating it, so it would have a chance to become a standard.
> 
> Could you rewrite this ? What speaks against "fc" ?

The fc0.9 < fc1 < fc2 proposal (and others like the lettered
distepochs) have been discussed here:

http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/2004-March/000203.html
http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/2004-May/000313.html

> What have fedora.us people been advocating ?

In fact I believe the fcX disttag scheme with "0.9" as FC
"pre-versions" for RHL was originally proposed by Warren half a year+
ago on some fedora lists, but neither google nor the redhat.com
mailing list search facilities were of any help.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/attachments/20040615/0b0d934b/attachment.bin