I just got done with a couple of builds for EPEL6 which I based on SRPMS from rawhide which completed fine but the version column in both the build and monitor screen show the Release and dist tag.
Is this expected?
Thanks, Richard
On 02/12/2015 04:31 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I just got done with a couple of builds for EPEL6 which I based on SRPMS from rawhide which completed fine but the version column in both the build and monitor screen show the Release and dist tag.
Is this expected?
Yes. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169782
Mirek
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Miroslav Suchy msuchy@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/12/2015 04:31 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I just got done with a couple of builds for EPEL6 which I based on SRPMS from rawhide which completed fine but the version column in both the build and monitor screen show the Release and dist tag.
Is this expected?
Thanks!
I added a comment to the BZ... The release doesn't really bother me but it takes the dist tag from the SRPM which I think is a bad idea, and since the repos are separate for each release, I don't think it provides any useful purpose.
Thanks, Richard
On 02/13/2015 05:26 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I added a comment to the BZ... The release doesn't really bother me but it takes the dist tag from the SRPM which I think is a bad idea, and since the repos are separate for each release, I don't think it provides any useful purpose.
Technically dist tag *is* part of release number.
Mirek
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Miroslav Suchy msuchy@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/13/2015 05:26 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I added a comment to the BZ... The release doesn't really bother me but it takes the dist tag from the SRPM which I think is a bad idea, and since the repos are separate for each release, I don't think it provides any useful purpose.
Technically dist tag *is* part of release number.
Meh... You're obviously right, but I really don't like reporting of the dist tag from the SRPM, it's potentially confusing and useless.
Richard
On Sunday 15 of February 2015 17:16:34 Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Miroslav Suchy msuchy@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/13/2015 05:26 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I added a comment to the BZ... The release doesn't really bother me but it takes the dist tag from the SRPM which I think is a bad idea, and since the repos are separate for each release, I don't think it provides any useful purpose.
Technically dist tag *is* part of release number.
Meh... You're obviously right, but I really don't like reporting of the dist tag from the SRPM, it's potentially confusing and useless.
I agree. It leads to confusion. What is not nice that removing of dist-tag from 'rpm --qf %{RELEASE}' would lead to some ugly regexp.
FWIW, the code you could possibly edit is update_job_pkg_version().
Pavel
Miroslav Suchy wrote:
On 02/13/2015 05:26 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I added a comment to the BZ... The release doesn't really bother me but it takes the dist tag from the SRPM which I think is a bad idea, and since the repos are separate for each release, I don't think it provides any useful purpose.
Technically dist tag *is* part of release number.
I, for one, much appreciate this new feature of showing the release tag (in case you're considering removing it based on this recent criticism/feedback).
-- Rex
On Monday 16 of February 2015 11:00:29 Rex Dieter wrote:
Miroslav Suchy wrote:
Technically dist tag *is* part of release number.
I, for one, much appreciate this new feature of showing the release tag
/me appreciates it too! But do you find useful also the %dist tag part of release tag? Packages in different chroots will not respect that anyway.
For the solution, while generating srpms for Copr users should redefine dist tag to %{nil} probably.
Pavel
copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Miroslav Suchý -
Pavel Raiskup -
Rex Dieter -
Richard Shaw