Bug 1237171

Summary:	release field does not include dist tag
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Kamil Páral <kparal>
Component:	ivtv-firmware	Assignee:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	23	CC:	Axel.Thimm, jarodwilson, jwboyer, kwizart, pebolle
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-11-04 14:10:53 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:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1237153

Description Kamil Páral 2015-06-30 13:55:24 UTC

Description of problem:
This package does not include a dist tag (e.g. '.fc23') in its release field, even though it is mandatory according the packaging guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag

Our automated testing efforts are beginning to rely on having a dist tag in RPM file names:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-June/thread.html#10693

Please adjust the package spec file and add '%{?dist}' at the end of the release field. Do this for all supported Fedora releases.

It is not necessary to build a new package version immediately, but it should be prepared in the spec file so that a new package build in the future will contain the dist tag.

Thank you.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ivtv-firmware-2:20080701-26.noarch

Comment 1 Jarod Wilson 2015-06-30 15:54:14 UTC

This is a firmware package. There's nothing but a blob in it. The same package can be used for every Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, etc. There's absolutely no reason this package should have a dist tag. Your tests are broken if a dist tag is strictly required, imo.

Comment 2 Kamil Páral 2015-07-01 07:59:56 UTC

You can read the discussion, we're trying to make use of the fact that dist tag is mandatory to optimize the test execution time. If it turns out to not work for us, we will do it differently.

Nevertheless, the dist tag is still mandatory according to the guidelines, regardless of our test efforts (it was made mandatory 6 months earlier). If you think it's not a good idea, please start a discussion on the packaging mailing list.

IIUIC, the dist tag just denotes which fedora release the package was built against, but does not preclude installation on other fedora releases or even other distributions. So while you might see it unnecessary, it should not affect the use cases you mentioned even if you add it. Is that correct?

Comment 3 Jan Kurik 2015-07-15 13:53:09 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle.
Changing version to '23'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23

Comment 4 Kamil Páral 2016-11-04 14:20:19 UTC

Why is here such a resistance to using the dist tag? I don't understand it. Does it negatively affect the package somehow? Does it complicate maintenance for you in same way?

Comment 5 Josh Boyer 2016-11-04 15:56:07 UTC

There's no resistance to disttag.  It just makes no sense for this package.  It shouldn't be built again, and this bug has been sitting here with no intention of anyone actually working on it.  It's better to just close the bug.