[CentOS-devel] Confusing package versioning

Fri May 6 15:02:27 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 05/05/2011 12:49 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:03:07 PM Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 05/05/2011 04:58 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>> 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:
>> 3. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.2.src.rpm ==>    ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.centos.2.src.rpm
>> 4. 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.

Upstream has said that they would not number in that manner ... now that
they are doing so with some packages, that is, indeed, a problem.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110506/00e220d2/attachment-0005.sig>