On 05/05/11 04:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
- If we do change a package, then the dist tag will always be .el5.centos.
This is not confusing, and is exactly what we have been doing since we stood up CentOS.
What is confusing about this?
So which upstream source package was this CentOS package built from:
ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1.i386.rpm
and the choices are...
1. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.src.rpm 2. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.1.src.rpm 3. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.2.src.rpm 4. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.1.src.rpm
from the logic presented above, it could be either package 2 or package 4.
That is what is confusing.
Furthermore, from the scheme outlined above, the corresponding CentOS packages would look like:
1. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.src.rpm 2. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.1.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1.src.rpm 3. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.2.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.src.rpm 4. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.1.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1.src.rpm
Oops, package 4 is now the same as package 2 and won't ever update package 3 as intended by upstream
Now do you [sic] see the problem? Obviously you do as you [CentOS] released the package (4) as ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.1.src.rpm to solve the problem you have created, which leaves users equally confused as to which SRPM this might have been built from as there is no equivalent upstream ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5[_x].2.1.src.rpm package (yet).
One wonders how you will deal with ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_6.1.src.rpm should it ever be released by upstream?
All I was trying to say was that if you were to release package (4) as ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.centos.1.src.rpm (by using the dist tag of el5_4.centos as upstream does, and as you do for other non-centos modified packages) then a) you wouldn't have to solve the EVR problem you just created, and as a result b) it would be more obvious which upstream package your package is built from.