On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:35:48AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
No comments from RH? Should every repository and its cat come up
its own scheme creating more compatibility problems in the future?
Well, this thread is becoming old and boring and is like beating a
dead horse, so I am giving up ;)
While I personally think that scheme A (e.g. using fedora like
disttags for past RH releases) would solve the problems best, it only
makes sense to me, if that would become a standard, and not only
something atrpms follows.
Since neither RH nor any other repo really commented on this
(constructively that is ;), I guess it means repos will go wild with
supporting multiple RH/FC releases. I for my part will use scheme B
(numbering FC with something higher than rh9, e.g. rh9.1, similar to
Rex Dieter's suggestion a while back).
I wash my hands in innocence ;)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:58:46AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Bringing up this topic again, since it was left unresolved.
> I won't go into details again, about *why* a disttag is needed and why
> it has to adhear to rpm internal sort algorithms. Please check the
> following threads in doubt (and discuss the reasons there please, help
> keeping this thread constructive this time ;):
> The bottom line is that distags are needed if one wants to create
> packages for the same upstream sources but built for different
> distributions. Disttags can then be embedded in the release tag to
> ensure proper upgradability.
> ==================== Disttag schemes: pick one!
> Here are the discussed schemes (some others exist with small
> variations, e.g. fc instead of fdr, or no fdr tag at all, the
> discussion is the same). Default versioning is (no cvs/beta, kernel
> modules and special cases, leave that for another thread):
> <name>-<upstream version>-<releasenumber><disttag><non
sort relevant suffixes, e.g. repoid>
> e.g. simply
> disttag can be:
> A B C
> Red Hat Linux 7.3 fdr0.7.3 rh7.3 rh7.3
> Red Hat Linux 8.0 fdr0.8.0 rh8.0 rh8.0
> Red Hat Linux 9 fdr0.9 rh9 rh9
> Fedora Core 1 fdr1 rh9.1 1fdr
> Fedora Core 2 test1 fdr1.95 rh9.1.95 1.95fdr
> A) + consistent distid
> + future tagging will be self-explanatory
> + fits nicer into a general nameing scheme (e.g. not only RHL and
> FDR, but RHEL and non-RH could use, or allready do use the
> <disttag>:=<distid><distversion> idiom)
> - obfuscates RHL <= 9 rpm versioning
> - requires rebuilding of existing 3rd party repos for the sake of
> o requires a statement from redhat to allow calling RH 7.3 as FDR
> 0.7.3 for instance, e.g. the "old" RHL product is officially
> conamed Fedora 0.something
> B) + current practice for many repos offering rpms build form the same
> upstream sources for more than one distribution.
> + keeps current 3rd party repos from rebuilding all the old rpms
> just for reversioning (and users from redownloading the same rpms
> with a new name)
> - does not pertain the strict separation RHL <-> FDR, and may cause
> o A) is preferable, but B) may be a nice transition solution for
> existing installations.
> C) + visually pertains separation of rh and fdr releases
> - is a kludgy workaround using rpm semantics present only after
> RHL9, thus breaking upgrading from RH8.0 and less (note that rpm
> errata for fixing this rpm bug and others are still not
> officially available)
> - number prefixing breaks when the preceding expression is numeric
> separated with dots or underscores, e.g.
> foo-1.2.3-1.1_rh9 > foo-1.2.3-1_1fdr
> (the stems here are "foo-1.2.3-1.1" < "foo-1.2.3-1")
> Using decimal release tags needs to be separately considered, but
> the fact is that they are being used often.
> - reverses order of distid and distversion
> - Variant "1fdr<version>" keeps order of distid and distversion,
> but breaks in all other ways above, as well as introducing an
> obfuscating decimal in the release tag.
> I hope RH agrees to using A) or a variant thereof. In any case it
> would be beneficial if an "official" solution could be blessed, so
> that 3rd party repos don't have to reinvent their own
> Certainly many repos will start offering their packages (officially)
> after FC1 is (officially) released, so there are only a few days left
> In order to not molest users with forced downloads for reversioning
> rpms for older RHL releases, I would suggest to use B) in a transition
> phase for large rpms that do not need updating other than the
> reversioning. After some time B) will have been phased out.
> C) is not really an option. It will break more than it is intended to
> Also it would be nice to have rawhide versioning, e.g. immediately
> after a release update fedora-release to the next test release
> version or something below to indicate rawhide builds.
> Thank you for your time.