On Nov. 28, 2013, 9:05 a.m., Jan Safranek wrote:
> openlmi-providers.spec, lines 27-28
>
<
http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1285/diff/1/?file=6670#file6670l...
>
> This will force us to bump and rebuild openlmi-providers after any bugfix update
of storage or networking providers. Do we really want to depend on them so tightly?
>
Radek Novacek wrote:
I agree, it would be better if providers can do bugfix releases independently and
OpenLMI meta-release would only enforce some minor releases.
I don't see any benefit in strict requirement to some bugfix version.
What about "Requires: openlmi-storage >= 0.7 && openlmi-storage <
0.8" ?
- Jan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1285/#review1818
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 25, 2013, 5:17 p.m., Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1285/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Nov. 25, 2013, 5:17 p.m.)
Review request for OpenLMI Developers.
Repository: openlmi-providers
Description
-------
Define OpenLMI 1.0.0
Set strict version dependencies for the meta-package
Diffs
-----
openlmi-providers.spec aa2225fcac396ac49ffad95c99a9241e5825dda1
Diff:
http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1285/diff/
Testing
-------
Built the package, verified that the resulting openlmi meta-package has:
openlmi-account = 0.4.1-3.fc21
openlmi-hardware = 0.4.1-3.fc21
openlmi-networking = 0.2.1
openlmi-powermanagement = 0.4.1-3.fc21
openlmi-providers = 1.0.0-3.fc21
openlmi-service = 0.4.1-3.fc21
openlmi-software = 0.4.1-3.fc21
openlmi-storage = 0.7.0
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
tog-pegasus
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Thanks,
Stephen Gallagher