On Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:03:07 PM Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/05/2011 04:58 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
- ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.2.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.src.rpm
- ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.1.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1.src.rpm
Yes, and as a result CentOS released ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.1.src.rpm as ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.1.src.rpm because you couldn't release it according to your versioning scheme because in this case it's broken.
[snip]
Based on your assumption - we would never be able to do local fix's for anything. Sit back and think it through. There is a clear reason to create that .centos. differentiation.
I told someone else I was going to sleep on this reply, but, I think I'm pretty clear on what I'm saying....
Why could the package versioning not have been:
- ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.2.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.centos.2.src.rpm
- ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.1.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.centos.1.src.rpm
instead of what was chosen?
I think that's what Ned is talking about; adding the .centos. is appropriate, but giving a clear indication of which upstream source RPM is the origin of the modified source RPM is a good thing, no? The fact that Ned is confused about the reason speaks volumes; I likewise, not really having been aware of this before, am confused why you would want to throw away (or relocate) the '_3' and '_4' in the modified source RPM's versioning. And it has nothing, in my mind, to do with the EVR comparison; it has to do with being able to correlate the centos-modified source RPM with the upstream source RPM from which the centos version is derived.
Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong, but that's how I'm understanding the confusion at this juncture. And Ned, please correct me if I've missed what you're saying.