Bug 1204467
| Summary: | Please re-review for packaging mistakes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael> |
| Component: | pcp | Assignee: | Nathan Scott <nathans> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 21 | CC: | brolley, fche, lberk, mgoodwin, nathans, pcp, scox |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | pcp-3.10.4-1.el5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-04-22 22:57:19 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Michael Schwendt
2015-03-22 12:15:12 UTC
Ah, thanks Michael! I'll work through those for the next update. Lukas, could you look into the rawhide snapshot naming issues Michael mentioned? - presumably the same changes will be needed in systemtap, from whence that came. It turns out that the snapshot-naming issues are false positives: we're exactly following the "pre-release packages" convention for these. Are you kidding? The package has been at 3.10.3-2 before. Both in %changelog as well as in koji. Now it returned to 3.10.3-0.something, which is _lower_ than the earlier release: 2 is higher than 0. That's another mistake. And it is a snapshot, but if it has been at 3.10.3 before, the later snapshots are a post-release. > Release: 0.804.g2e0fe59%{?dist} Look at the "kismet pre-release svn checkout" example: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Examples You're missing the %{checkout} value as explained here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages Lots of upgrade path issues because of those versioning problems: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10542 Example: $ rpmdev-vercmp 3.10.3-1.fc22 3.10.3-0.804.g2e0fe59.fc23 3.10.3-1.fc22 > 3.10.3-0.804.g2e0fe59.fc23 > presumably the same changes will be needed in systemtap, from whence that came.
Confirmed.
> The package has been at 3.10.3-2 before. Both in %changelog as well as in
> koji. Now it returned to 3.10.3-0.something
That's a separate matter - it should be named 3.10.4-something now. The other question is whether it's better to model it as a ¶1.5.2.1.2 pre-release vs. ¶1.5.2.1.1 snapshot.
> The other question is whether it's better to model it as a ¶1.5.2.1.2
> pre-release vs. ¶1.5.2.1.1 snapshot.
There is no difference as long as you check out the source code from an SCM system.
Let me quote from the guidelines:
| If the snapshot package is considered a "pre-release package", follow the
| guidelines listed in Pre-Release Packages for snapshot packages, using the
| %{checkout} that you decide on above. (For instance,
| in kismet-0-0.3.20040204svn, 20040204svn is the %{checkout})
That is, currently it does _not_ follow the pre-release versioning guidelines for snapshots.
| If the snapshot is a "post-release package", follow the guidelines in the
| Post-Release Packages section. Where the %{posttag} in that section is the
| %{checkout} string you decided on above.
Same here.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #7) > > The other question is whether it's better to model it as a ¶1.5.2.1.2 > > pre-release vs. ¶1.5.2.1.1 snapshot. > > There is no difference as long as you check out the source code from an SCM > system. > > Let me quote from the guidelines: > > | If the snapshot package is considered a "pre-release package", follow the > | guidelines listed in Pre-Release Packages for snapshot packages, using the > | %{checkout} that you decide on above. (For instance, > | in kismet-0-0.3.20040204svn, 20040204svn is the %{checkout}) > > That is, currently it does _not_ follow the pre-release versioning > guidelines for snapshots. > > | If the snapshot is a "post-release package", follow the guidelines in the > | Post-Release Packages section. Where the %{posttag} in that section is the > | %{checkout} string you decided on above. > > Same here. As of the current rawhide spin, this particular naming issue has been fixed. Please see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=622679 I will tweak the systemtap spins as well next week to observe proper YYYYMMDDgit{describe} naming. pcp-3.10.4-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcp-3.10.4-1.fc22 pcp-3.10.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcp-3.10.4-1.fc21 pcp-3.10.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcp-3.10.4-1.fc20 pcp-3.10.4-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcp-3.10.4-1.el5 Package pcp-3.10.4-1.el5: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing pcp-3.10.4-1.el5' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-5870/pcp-3.10.4-1.el5 then log in and leave karma (feedback). pcp-3.10.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pcp-3.10.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pcp-3.10.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pcp-3.10.4-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |