https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784
--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> Questions/notes:
>
> 1) should this buildrequire the exact same version of %{source_rpm_name}?
I wanted to avoid that because it'd mean that we'd need to manually copy the
version.
The motivation for splitting this package out is that it'll be built
(presumably much) less
often than the systemd package. So the release numbers will get out of sync.
And in fact systemd-boot does not need to match the systemd version: we
generally want
to update it whenever there's a new version, but it could be before or after
the systemd
package. (systemd-boot generally must support booting newer and older
systems in multiboot
scenarios, and non-linux systems, etc.)
It will be quite confusing when this package version will be 251~rc1 but the
stuff it signed will be 252~rc3. That's why. Release numbers can get out of
sync, I was talking about the version.
E.g.:
BuildRequires: %{source_rpm_name} = %{version}
-----------
Related suggestion -- what if you added:
Provides: bundled(%{source_rpm_name}) = %(rpm -q --qf
'%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}')
That way, the version-release will be repoqueriable. The current way, the
version is only in description, which is harder to get.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784