Hi,
'nuff of all this. The subject says it all. I already asked for it *before* *any* Extras builds would start taking place. It didn't happen. But now I *want* it to happen before any FC4 Extras builds do.
And I'll go through every single spec file alone if I need to.
If anyone is _opposed_ to this change, please voice yourself now.
Matthias
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 16:29 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
If anyone is _opposed_ to this change, please voice yourself now.
As long as it triggers known bugs in the distro version where this action is targeted at, rpm in particular; I am.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Ville [ISO-8859-1] Skytt� wrote:
If anyone is _opposed_ to this change, please voice yourself now.
As long as it triggers known bugs in the distro version where this action is targeted at, rpm in particular; I am.
I'd rather deal with the bugs than keep this thing around. It is embarassing to grown people that have packaged lots of stuff in their lifetimes.
Plus, all current versions of rpm should deal with this issue correctly. The only stuff that breaks is the rpm --freshen on older releases of rpm. Did I mention that rpm has been security errata'd several times since?
As I mentioned before, we're releasing these packages as part of a yum repository. If you download them manually from the web and use rpm --freshen instead of yum to update them, you get to keep all the broken pieces.
I don't think we should care. A fringe usage gets a fringe result. So what?
Cristian
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:11 -0500, Cristian Gafton wrote:
Plus, all current versions of rpm should deal with this issue correctly. The only stuff that breaks is the rpm --freshen on older releases of rpm. Did I mention that rpm has been security errata'd several times since?
No, current rpm --freshen breaks too. My patch has not been taken into rawhide rpm. I spoke to jbj about it this morning, and he responded by curling into his little "political bullshit" ball and insisting that he had to maintain existing freshen behavior for people that depend on it.
Does anyone even use --freshen these days? I don't think yum/apt uses it...
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 12:11 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:11 -0500, Cristian Gafton wrote:
Plus, all current versions of rpm should deal with this issue correctly. The only stuff that breaks is the rpm --freshen on older releases of rpm. Did I mention that rpm has been security errata'd several times since?
No, current rpm --freshen breaks too. My patch has not been taken into rawhide rpm. I spoke to jbj about it this morning, and he responded by curling into his little "political bullshit" ball and insisting that he had to maintain existing freshen behavior for people that depend on it.
Does anyone even use --freshen these days? I don't think yum/apt uses it...
People using rpm --freshen to do these kind of upgrades are either nuts enough to deal with the breakage using a bit of shell-scripting or whatever or should be educated to use proper tools for the job, pick any depsolver you prefer (rpm --freshen is part of rpm cli operations, not rpmlib so none of the depsolvers are affected).
Kill the damn zero epochs finally, pretty please.
- Panu -
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 14:00 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
Does anyone even use --freshen these days? I don't think yum/apt uses it...
yes - some of my scripting does, without significant incident
Then you should lean hard on jbj to take my patchfix for freshening in an epoch corner case (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/beta/show_bug.cgi?id=143301). Since we've removed all the Epoch: 0 references in Extras, you will almost definitely hit this bug.
I tried already. If it affects you, you should try. :)
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
Ville Skyttä wrote :
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 16:29 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
If anyone is _opposed_ to this change, please voice yourself now.
As long as it triggers known bugs in the distro version where this action is targeted at, rpm in particular; I am.
I know jbj was still in Belgium until yesterday, but I don't know when he'll be back to check out spot's fix for that particular freshen issue, but I'll definitely be among the ones that will lobby him to push the fix into FC4.
Matthias
Matthias Saou wrote :
And I'll go through every single spec file alone if I need to.
Checked manually _all_ spec files from "a" to "r" that contain the word "Epoch" somewhere. It's 1AM and I'm still in the office, so I'll stop for now before I start screwing too many spec files up... but I was dead serious when I wrote the above, and I should be done by tomorrow.
Please don't hesitate to check some of the changes I've made, like Michael seems to be doing, as I've probably broken things here and there...
Matthias
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Cristian Gafton -
Matthias Saou -
Panu Matilainen -
R P Herrold -
Tom Callaway -
Ville Skyttä