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.