[CentOS-devel] Confusing package versioning

Thu May 5 17:37:46 UTC 2011
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org>


On 05/05/2011 06:20 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> What I have worked out is that you have stated on numerous occasions in
> this thread that the dist tag isn't used in EVR determinations and I
> responded by showing a clear example (ntp) where it is.

Yes, I still stick by that; its based on what we have found over the 
years and what we have been told in various communication. As you said 
the ntp package is the only example otherwise - and I'm fairly sure it 
was a slip up from someone.

> What would have been nice is if you could have been equally gracious,
> accepted that fact and acknowledged it rather than retorting with
> rhetorical questions and derogatory implications (in other channels)
> that I must be "smoking" something.

and I explained why.

> I raised a very simple and straight forward point in starting this
> thread, and I get the impression that the majority of other responders

sure, the point you raised is valid. I just dont see the problems its 
trying to solve as being real problems. Comments inline:

> If you were to use a dist tag of el5_6.centos, for example, rather than
> el5.centos (where upstream uses el5_6) then:
> 1. CentOS package naming will be closer to that of upstream than it is
> now, and

yes, but it will change within the scope of the package / build cycle 
itself. We do make the extra effort to make sure that people can see 
clearly what changes are there, what packages they are in and then track 
them through the life of the release.

> 2. it will be more obvious to end users which upstream SRPM a given
> CentOS package is built from.

There are plenty of ways to workout what srpm a specific centos package 
is built from, including changelog tracking and even using specific 
metadata from srpms and comparing that. the dist portion is easy to 
specify and track in that way ( and tbh, just doing name compares isnt 
very convincing, even the 3 -'s from the right process is liable to 
break down )

Besides how would that scale to packages that are rebuilt or fixed post 
release - there needs to be a version or release bump and that takes it 
out of sync with this scheme of things. Sticking with the .el5.centos 
seems to make the most sense ( to me anyway, and I've not seen any 
reason brought up so far to prove otherwise ).

> all of which IMHO would be a good thing given CentOS aims to track
> upstream as closely as possible.

yes, and we also aim to make it very clear when we change things - and 
changing the way we do that almost 50% of the way through the lifecycle 
of the release, with no-clear-problem to solve, still sounds like 
something that isnt worth doing.

Perhaps something to consider for C6, but not for C5. Lots of people 
already have established expectations on what is coming through the funnel.

- KB