On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/13/20 7:52 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
>> Also, since you might want to bump the release independently in EPEL (e.g.
>> if we discover something was wrong in the way we have packaged this), I
>> recommend doing:
>>
>> %global rhelrelease 10
>> %global baserelease 1
>> Release: %{rhelrelease}.%{baserelease}%{?dist}
>> ...
>> Requires: qpdf-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{rhelrelease}%{?dist}
>>
>> (Assuming qpdf has regular %{dist} and not some modularity artificial
>> value.)
>>
>> Note that I've named the EPEL part of the release "baserelease", so
>> rpmdev-bumpspec does the right thing.
>
> If rhelrelease updates to 10.1 which will win ?
> ... and if we have already bumped baserelease to 2 ?
>
> rhelrelease name
> baserelease
> 10 2 qpdf-devel-10.2.epel.rpm
> 10.1 qpdf-devel-10.1.rhel.rpm
>
> Which will win ?
Right. Can we use ^ in EL8 to separate the RHEL and EPEL parts?
"^" sorts after digits (at least in ASCII and Basic Latin), so
can anyone check whether
qpdf-devel-10^2.epel.rpm
will trump
qpdf-devel-100.1.rhel.rpm
or
qpdf-devel-10.3.rhel.rpm
?
My recollection is that there have been several different
implementations of parsers for version-release checks with different
twisty paths for splitting sub-components.
My last RedHat based system is SL6 (sorry I moved to Ubuntu to match
work) so I couldn't do a reliable test myself.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
andrew(a)aitchison.me.uk