Hi all,
I would like to ask a question about whether the workflow below, which I
use frequently, can be used in packages which uses rpmautospec. I hit
this when I was doing a testing scratch build of another package which
already switched to rpmautospec and since rpmautospec is now proposed to
be default for new packages, I would like to know whether, and if so,
how my workflow can be applied with rpmautospec.
My workflow:
If I have a fix which I want to send to user to verify in its
environment, I do a testing build, which has the same release as the
current stable package (f.e. 1.fc37), but I add additional suffix to set
the testing build to higher NVR than the package in the stable (f.e.
1.fc37.test.1). Then the user can just install the testing packages via
DNF, accepting koji links to RPMs, and once an official fixed package
arrives (with bumped NVR - 2.fc37), the official stable package replaces
the testing one, ensuring the user has the supported rpms.
Is this doable with rpmautospec and if it is, how?
Thank you in advance!
Zdenek
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat, BRQ-TPBC
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
