Dne 11. 03. 19 v 20:45 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 11. 03. 19 19:25, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "MH" == Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
writes:
>
> MH> Is this something that we actually want? E.g. I was quite surprised
> MH> by the behavior.
>
> What about it is surprising? You remove the bootstrap bit and without
> changing anything else you have a package which sorts newer than the
> previous with-bootstrap package. Even though we haven't yet run short
> of integers, I can see the utility in this.
I was bit by this in copr when I rebuilt something from Fedora without
bumping and it and it got lower nevr than Fedora official build.
Obviously I should have bumped the release, but I was surprised
nevertheless.
> MH> When I bootstrap, should I manually bump the release number or let
> MH> this magic happen?
>
> Well, obviously you have to bump it once. Whether there's any utility
> in saving you from having to bump twice is up for discussion, but
> certainly you can.
I'm OK with not bumping the release manually when I build the
non-boostrap build. I just wanted to know wheter it is considered OK.
> MH> Also, how do I opt-out from this behavior (other than renaming my
> MH> conditional)?
>
> Not outside of redefining %dist. If an opt-out is important, the
> conditional could be changed a bit:
Not sure yet, but we certainly have opt outs for a lot of things.
> %__bootstrap ~bootstrap
> %dist
> %{?distprefix}.fc31%{?with_bootstrap:%{__bootstrap}}
>
> Then you could %define _bootstrap %nil in your spec to avoid this.
Let's do this?
This looks like nice extension.
BTW this was the last real use case for me:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9380
Vít