Hi,
I've submitted the Linux Device Driver book as a package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507915
I decided to not use the %{dist} tag in the release number versioning based on the reasoning in the ticket. This package was approved and I check the package into cvs.
When I did the initial check-in into the devel/ branch all the files got tagged as ldd_pdf-3.0-2 (notice the absence of %{dist}). Now I can build the package in the devel branch. However, I now have a problem, how do I build the package for F-10 and F-11 ?
- Do I need to create a different tag 'manually' for each of these branches ? (since "make tag" tries to create the same tag as that of the devel branch)
- If I do the above, would make build work ?
what is the procedure followed by other packages which do not use the %dist tag ?
regards, -steve
"s" == steve steve@lonetwin.net writes:
s> I decided to not use the %{dist} tag in the release number s> versioning based on the reasoning in the ticket. This package was s> approved and I check the package into cvs.
And in the review for one of the other packages you submitted (javanotes) I told you that you'd have tagging problems if you did this. You seem to have ignored that advice.
s> Now I can build the package in the devel branch. However, I now s> have a problem, how do I build the package for F-10 and F-11 ?
As I wrote in the javanotes review, you have to make sure that they have different release numbers that still sort properly. The easiest way to do this is to use the dist tag.
s> - Do I need to create a different tag 'manually' for each of these s> branches ?
No, just use the dist tag.
s> what is the procedure followed by other packages which do not use s> the %dist tag ?
Manually keep track of the release numbers. Assign release 3 to devel, release 2 to F11 and release 1 to F10 (except that you can't do that, since you already tagged release 1, so you'll need to start at release 4 in devel. And then if you have to update, you have more pain.
You seem to think that not using the dist tag saves something somewhere; in reality, it just causes you exactly the trouble that you're having and doesn't really buy anything since each release is signed with a different key and so the packages have to be different anyway.
- J<
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your comments, ...
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"s" == steve steve@lonetwin.net writes:
s> I decided to not use the %{dist} tag in the release number s> versioning based on the reasoning in the ticket. This package was s> approved and I check the package into cvs.
And in the review for one of the other packages you submitted (javanotes) I told you that you'd have tagging problems if you did this. You seem to have ignored that advice.
I did not intend to deliberately ignore your advice, I just wanted to incorporate all the the comments received on my first accepted package (of this nature) into all of my other submissions.
Since the ldd-pdf package was already 'approved' by the time you made the comment, I assumed that it would be ok. It's my mistake for not reading your comments on javanotes more closely. I was too hasty and over eager to get this done.
<...snip...> You seem to think that not using the dist tag saves something somewhere; in reality, it just causes you exactly the trouble that you're having and doesn't really buy anything since each release is signed with a different key and so the packages have to be different anyway.
Well, now I do see the problems and also the mistake of assuming that there'd be something to gain.
So, considering this wouldn't it be a good idea to document this reasoning and actively discourage the exclusion of the dist tag on this wiki page --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
It states "Using the %{dist} tag is not mandatory,..." at the beginning and then leaves the decision up to the maintainer ...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag#Do_I_Have_To_Use_the_Dist_T...
IMHO, the problems with building and tagging should be mentioned in the page to avoid further issues like this.
Thanks everyone for your comments here and on the bz.
cheers, - stev
On 07/01/2009 11:48 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
You seem to think that not using the dist tag saves something somewhere; in reality, it just causes you exactly the trouble that you're having and doesn't really buy anything since each release is signed with a different key and so the packages have to be different anyway.
It's worth noting that this was not true when this document was originally written. It could probably use some additional discussion around how to deal with the cases where the dist tag is not in use. Anyone want to take a shot at that?
~spot
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 13:08 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 07/01/2009 11:48 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
You seem to think that not using the dist tag saves something somewhere; in reality, it just causes you exactly the trouble that you're having and doesn't really buy anything since each release is signed with a different key and so the packages have to be different anyway.
It's worth noting that this was not true when this document was originally written. It could probably use some additional discussion around how to deal with the cases where the dist tag is not in use. Anyone want to take a shot at that?
I wasn't aware of the complications either, since they aren't documented anywhere.
Could we just do things the easy way, and propose the %{?dist} tag to be made mandatory?
Jussi Lehtola (jussilehtola@fedoraproject.org) said:
You seem to think that not using the dist tag saves something somewhere; in reality, it just causes you exactly the trouble that you're having and doesn't really buy anything since each release is signed with a different key and so the packages have to be different anyway.
It's worth noting that this was not true when this document was originally written. It could probably use some additional discussion around how to deal with the cases where the dist tag is not in use. Anyone want to take a shot at that?
I wasn't aware of the complications either, since they aren't documented anywhere.
Could we just do things the easy way, and propose the %{?dist} tag to be made mandatory?
Well, we have a proposal on the table to move to one global signing key, which removes one argument.
Bill
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
steve -
Susi Lehtola -
Tom Callaway