[CentOS-devel] Confusing package versioning

Thu May 5 15:15:13 UTC 2011
Ned Slider <ned at unixmail.co.uk>

On 05/05/11 04:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 2.  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:


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.