Hello,
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 16:16 -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Thomas Spura <toms...@fedoraproject.org>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:46:34 -0500
> > Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> >> rversion=2.1
> >> subversion=400
> >>
> >>
> >> Spec file extract:
> >> Version: %{rversion}.%{subversion}
> >> Release: 2%{?locmark}
> >> Source: ...../%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> >>
> >> So the potential for disasters is real?
> >
> > It would help to know which package this is about. :)
>
> It looks like the "clement" package, whose maintainer should reread
> the packaging guidelines for packages with svn revisions as part of
> their e-v-r combinations.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
It look like you should have read my email :-)
Let be straight and simple (package name doesn't
matter here)
1) Spec file say version: 1.2.3
2) sources file say tar file: 1.0.0
"sources" as included in git and generated
by fedpkg new-sources
Koji build say, "compiling 1.2.3 everything fine"
but rpm contents itself is build with 1.0.0
This what I noticed this afternoon
Possible?: yes/no
What I am saying, if we push spec file forgetting
about updating "sources" file with the new version
number, we could have a version discrepancy
between rpm number build by koji and actual
real contents.
Is my question simple enough?
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
A bientôt
==========================================================================
Jean-Marc Pigeon Internet: j...@safe.ca
SAFE Inc. Phone: (514) 493-4280
Fax: (514) 493-1946
Clement, 'a kiss solution' to get rid of SPAM (at last)
Clement' Home base <"http://www.clement.safe.ca";>
==========================================================================
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
