On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stu Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 22:01, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> There's many things that need to be changed in rpm but IMHO this isn't
one
>> of them. RPM produces predictable versioning. Hacking it up with special
>> cases will lead nowhere but pain.
>
> Suppose we hack the RPM, such that right before RPM does the EVR check
> when updating a package, it will take the Release string and does a
> 's@.fc\([0-9]\)@.f\1(a)' for both the old and the new package? Can you
> give me an example where this might lead to a problem?
Which part of "Hacking it up with special cases will lead nowhere but
pain." confused you?
The part where an obvious hack would not cause a confusion confused me.
It's a hack. It's Fedora-specific, so doesn't belong in
RPM (or
anything else). And RPM will no longer produce predictable versioning.
My proposed hack's outcome is quite predictable.
And you'd probably need to hack it in to yum and numerous other
package management tools.
That's correct.
Josh Boyer wrote:
Yes. The part where you said "hack the RPM". Carrying a
Fedora specific hack
like that in our RPM package for _no_ good reason seems pretty silly.
Well, there *is* a reason. Qualifying is good or bad depends on the taste.
I am not a fan of ".fX" and I don't have any good or bad feeling
against ".fcX". I just wanted to propose a painless resolution if many
people find this to be a problem.
Nevertheless no one has answered my original question yet. (It feels
like the "using autotools in the specfile is not good." claim that
nobody could back up.)
Best,
Orcan