Bug 435927 - Release tag doesn't follow guidelines
Summary: Release tag doesn't follow guidelines
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: frysk
Version: 8
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andrew Cagney
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-03-04 14:29 UTC by Andrew Overholt
Modified: 2008-03-04 15:33 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-03-04 15:33:00 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
potential patch (1.00 KB, patch)
2008-03-04 14:29 UTC, Andrew Overholt
no flags Details | Diff

Description Andrew Overholt 2008-03-04 14:29:31 UTC
The frysk RPM version and release strings don't comply with (my interpretation
of (?)) the naming guidelines:

0.0.1.2008.02.29.rh1-1

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages

Assuming that version 0.0.1 is pending, this means that the frysk _version_
should be  "0.0.1" and the _release_ should be "0.x.YYYYMMDDgitZZZZ" (an
abbreviated git hash, < 13 'Z's).  In this case, we'd have:  version="0.0.1"
release="0.1.20080229git<whatever the hash is>".  If patches were made later to
this snapshot RPM, the 'x' component of the release would increment by 1 each
time.  The ".%{?dist}" may be tacked onto the end if you wish.  Further
snapshots would restart at 1 with the appropriate date and git hash:

0.0.1-0.1.20080229git<whatever the hash is> (existing package)
0.0.1-0.2.20080229git<whatever the hash is> (patch or something to existing)
0.0.1-0.1.20080324git<whatever the hash is> (new snapshot)
0.0.1-1 (actual 0.0.1 release)
0.0.1-2 (patch to 0.0.1 release)
...
1.0-1 (1.0 release)

*However*, because the existing version is incorrect, changing it to meet the
guidelines will result in all future RPMs being "older" in rpm parlance than the
existing one.  There are two ways to fix this:  1) add an epoch and 2) make the
version "0.0.2".  Choice #2 is much preferred, but I guess it sort of depends
upon whether or not upstream has released 0.0.1 yet ... or if the "next" (which
could be the first) release upstream will be 0.0.2.

Comment 1 Andrew Overholt 2008-03-04 14:29:31 UTC
Created attachment 296739 [details]
potential patch

Comment 2 Andrew Cagney 2008-03-04 15:25:05 UTC
The frysk tarball is:

   frysk-0.0.1.2008.02.29.rh1.tar.bz2

and the full version number branded into the executable is:

  $ ftrace --version
  0.0.1.2008.02.29.rh1

there's a balance here between fedora an its deals and frysk's realities.  The
current system is clearly not causing problems.

I trust we can see through to some sort of sane compromise.

Comment 3 Andrew Overholt 2008-03-04 15:33:00 UTC
That's an interesting version number for the upstream tarball :)  If that's what
it is, that's what it is, though.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.