On Tue, 2025-04-29 at 21:09 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > 2. Using %autorelease without %autochangelog (or vice versa) was > always a bit ill-advised, exactly because of tooling corner cases and > bugs like 1. > Was there a reason why you only applied rpmautospec partially to the > package on import? > > Fabio > > [1]: > https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/c/5ea187c7f60f77b01ec8cee676c1a49fac68fcb5?branch=main > [2]: > https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/c/30eca1b7a06a2df5bbfa3bfd6a4c89c19c6ebd60?branch=main
I don't recall specifically, but in the past I have definitely had issues with %autorelease getting the release number wrong. (Even last week I think I saw one where it inexplicably skipped a number, which isn't vital but is weird). I do disagree with the idea that this should be "ill-advised", for that reason. %autochangelog is a pretty simple thing. %autorelease is handling something potentially much more complicated and easier to get wrong. It certainly seems to me like %autochangelog without %autorelease is a case that should be accounted for in related tooling. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- _______________________________________________ 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
