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: 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.