On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 04:22:24PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Okay, here's the first draft of spec changes to alter the kernel rpm
> version and release fields to more closely match what the actual
> upstream kernel base is. Its heavily commented at the moment to try to
> explain what's going on.
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>
>> The other crazy idea I had was to call 2.6.22-rc7
>> 2.6.22-0.rc7.git0.1.fc8. Making fedora_build auto-increment is probabl=
y
>> cleaner, though it'd be nice to also have it reset on a kernel major
>> version rebase (either manu
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:32:51PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:26:06PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:56:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > > > > It's non-
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:26:06PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:56:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > > > It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
> > > > > auto-incr
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:56:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > > It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
> > > > auto-increment.
> > >
> > > buildid is the "please set this to .me" one.
> > >
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>
> The other crazy idea I had was to call 2.6.22-rc7
> 2.6.22-0.rc7.git0.1.fc8. Making fedora_build auto-increment is probably
> cleaner, though it'd be nice to also have it reset on a kernel major
> version rebase (either manually or
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:47:18AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>
> > This is why Fedora adopted the pre-release versioning scheme that we
> > did:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages
> >
> > In the Fedora scheme, this
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:56:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
> > > auto-increment.
> >
> > buildid is the "please set this to .me" one.
> > fedora_build i
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
> > auto-increment.
>
> buildid is the "please set this to .me" one.
> fedora_build is the one to bump on commit.
Can't %{fedora_build} be set based on the $Revision$
> It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
> auto-increment.
buildid is the "please set this to .me" one.
fedora_build is the one to bump on commit.
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redha
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:47:18AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> This is why Fedora adopted the pre-release versioning scheme that we
> did:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages
>
> In the Fedora scheme, this would be
>
> 0.%{X}.%{alphatag
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 12:33 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:56:27AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > Roland McGrath wrote:
> > >> What's Patch5?
> > >
> > > D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
> > > kernel-2.6.spe
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:56:27AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > Roland McGrath wrote:
> >> What's Patch5?
> >
> > D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
> > kernel-2.6.spec -p 5 -d "somemacro value"' to verify expected N-V-R's
> > being
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Roland McGrath wrote:
>> What's Patch5?
>
> D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
> kernel-2.6.spec -p 5 -d "somemacro value"' to verify expected N-V-R's
> being set properly. Disregard the -v2 patch, use this guy instead. :)
> (or just drop the
Roland McGrath wrote:
> What's Patch5?
D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
kernel-2.6.spec -p 5 -d "somemacro value"' to verify expected N-V-R's
being set properly. Disregard the -v2 patch, use this guy instead. :)
(or just drop the Patch5 line out of the resulting
What's Patch5?
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Roland McGrath wrote:
>> I presume you're referring to the likes of say kernel 2.6.21-gitX, which
>> was post-2.6.21, but pre-2.6.22-rc1? Crap. Hadn't thought about that
>> case. Okay, will have to do some further twiddling to cover that case...
>
> Yes, that's what I meant. Faking it as "rc0" mi
> I presume you're referring to the likes of say kernel 2.6.21-gitX, which
> was post-2.6.21, but pre-2.6.22-rc1? Crap. Hadn't thought about that
> case. Okay, will have to do some further twiddling to cover that case...
Yes, that's what I meant. Faking it as "rc0" might be the easiest thing to
k
Roland McGrath wrote:
> What about before the first -rcN tag?
I presume you're referring to the likes of say kernel 2.6.21-gitX, which
was post-2.6.21, but pre-2.6.22-rc1? Crap. Hadn't thought about that
case. Okay, will have to do some further twiddling to cover that case...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EM
Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think this is what will fix the kernel-vanilla-debuginfo-common problem.
>
> --- kernel-2.6.spec 2 Jul 2007 17:07:41 - 1.3245
> +++ kernel-2.6.spec 2 Jul 2007 20:28:13 -
> @@ -1473,10 +1477,10 @@ BuildKernel %make_target %kernel_image k
> %global __debu
What about before the first -rcN tag?
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
I think this is what will fix the kernel-vanilla-debuginfo-common problem.
--- kernel-2.6.spec 2 Jul 2007 17:07:41 - 1.3245
+++ kernel-2.6.spec 2 Jul 2007 20:28:13 -
@@ -1473,10 +1477,10 @@ BuildKernel %make_target %kernel_image k
%global __debug_package 1
%files debuginfo-
Okay, here's the first draft of spec changes to alter the kernel rpm
version and release fields to more closely match what the actual
upstream kernel base is. Its heavily commented at the moment to try to
explain what's going on.
The basic approach is this:
1st fedora build of 2.6.21.5:
kernel-2.
23 matches
Mail list logo