Bug 158859
Summary: | alsa rcX packages will require epoch bump when 1.0.9 is released | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Axel Thimm <axel.thimm> |
Component: | alsa-lib | Assignee: | Martin Stransky <stransky> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | che666, gajownik, stefan.hoelldampf, tmraz, wtogami |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-01-12 14:37:15 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Axel Thimm
2005-05-26 10:20:45 UTC
alsa 1.0.9 was just released. Please consider inclusion in FC4, or an early update. Please avoid using epochs if possible, thanks! (Upgrades from test release/rawhide would be busted w/o epochs, but that has been discussed as being acceptable on fedora-devel) New packages are 1.0.9rf (release final) + release number... Same thing happened with 1.0.10. Please remove the rf tag before the release, thanks! With 1.0.11rc<N>, please use as a version 1.0.11 and place the rc<N> in the release field. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines Martin, for future reference please read and follow the "Pre-Release Packages" section of the package naming guidelines. This will allow us to avoid unnecessary Epoch inflation or other ugly hacks like this "rf" thing in the future. alsa-lib-1.0.10rc damage is already done with the Test1 release. IMHO, it is wrong to simply "fix" it now as Axel suggests and everyone will not be able to automatically upgrade into the newer package. Please just avoid this problem in the future when alsa-lib goes increments into the next rc version. (In reply to comment #4) > alsa-lib-1.0.10rc damage is already done with the Test1 release. IMHO, it is > wrong to simply "fix" it now as Axel suggests and everyone will not be able to > automatically upgrade into the newer package. That implies that there is now a guarantee for upgrades through testing and/or rawhide series? I'd be glad if this is the case. And yes, we would have to live with any versioning bugs, then. :/ IMHO there is still the "upgrades from test releases to gold releases are not supported" clause, if this is the case, then please do fix it. Another half year of broken alsa versions is ugly. Note that any alsa dependent package that will depend on say alsa-lib >= 1.0.10a will need to carry on this versioning instead and have funny dependencies like alsa-lib >= 1.0.10rfa. I personally never liked our policy of removing stuff and counting on users to manually fix their computers, but there are different opinions about this within Red Hat. I *might* be okay with removing a package that has been in rawhide only a few days in a non-important time (like 2 months ago). However in this case it has unfortunately been broken for too long. alsa-lib-1.0.10rc<N> entered rawhide exactly 2 months minus one day ago (28.09.05). Upgrading from previouse versions (1.0.9[rf|rc]) will not break, so one shouldn't count the 1.0.9 breakage. Does that make it easier to revert this versioning? I agree that it is a better goal to have guranteed upgradability in rawhide and/or testing, but as long as it is not a Red Hat policy, it doesn't count to stick it on a special package case. So since upgradability may be broken at several other package spots, please consider at least abusing it to fix the alsa-lib/utils versioning. Otherwise it will stick with FC5's live-frame and even worse perhaps RHEL5. This isn't really THAT bad. And the likelihood of this being an issue for RHEL5 is almost nil. We only need to be sure to avoid this in the future. If you see any similar issues like this popping up, please alert me immediately via e-mail or Bugzilla CC and I'll take care of it. I'll wait until 1.0.11 and then follow the oficial NVR format for FC. new package is 1.0.11-1.rc2 |