On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:13 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, I've just realized that %dist is defined to: > > %{?distprefix}.fc30%{?with_bootstrap:~bootstrap} > > That effectively means that using %bcond_without bootstrap, the dist is changed > to .fc31~bootstrap.

> > Is this something that we actually want? E.g. I was quite surprised by the behavior. > > Reading https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/818 > gives me an impression that the packaging committee didn't really approve nor > forbid this, so I'm looking for recommendation. > > When I bootstrap, should I manually bump the release number or let this magic > happen? Let the magic happen. Embrace it, and it will help you. 😁

>>>> "MH" == Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:

On 11. 03. 19 19:25, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "MH" == Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: > > MH> Is this something that we actually want? E.g. I was quite surprised > MH> by the behavior. > > What about it is surprising?  You remove the bootstrap bit and without > changing anything else you have a package which sorts newer than the > previous with-bootstrap package.  Even though we haven't yet run short > of integers, I can see the utility in this. I was bit by this in copr when I rebuilt something from Fedora without bumping and it and it got lower nevr than Fedora official build. Obviously I should have bumped the release, but I was surprised nevertheless. > MH> When I bootstrap, should I manually bump the release number or let > MH> this magic happen? > > Well, obviously you have to bump it once.  Whether there's any utility > in saving you from having to bump twice is up for discussion, but > certainly you can. I'm OK with not bumping the release manually when I build the non-boostrap build. I just wanted to know wheter it is considered OK. > MH> Also, how do I opt-out from this behavior (other than renaming my > MH> conditional)? > > Not outside of redefining %dist.  If an opt-out is important, the > conditional could be changed a bit: Not sure yet, but we certainly have opt outs for a lot of things. > %__bootstrap          ~bootstrap > %dist                > %{?distprefix}.fc31%{?with_bootstrap:%{__bootstrap}} > > Then you could %define _bootstrap %nil in your spec to avoid this. Let's do this?

>>>> "JA" == Jun Aruga <jaruga(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:

> %__bootstrap ~bootstrap %dist > %{?distprefix}.fc31%{?with_bootstrap:%{__bootstrap}} > > Then you could %define _bootstrap %nil in your spec to avoid this.