Hi,
On Seg, 2015-11-30 at 12:15 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 November 2015 at 14:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Switching to packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> [...]
> > In this link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelin
> > es#Pre-Release_packages
On Tuesday, 24 November 2015 at 14:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Switching to packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[...]
> In this link
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
> where we read :
>
> Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
>
> 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{
On Ter, 2015-11-24 at 08:18 -0500, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > we have two counters, one when upstream change the source
> > other when we rebuild the package, it will be better readable, to
> > understand if the upstream had updates or not
Switching to packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Ter, 2015-11-24 at 01:47 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Seg, 2015-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrot
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> we have two counters, one when upstream change the source
> other when we rebuild the package, it will be better readable, to
> understand if the upstream had updates or not.
>
Maybe I'm not understanding you well, but we *do* have two coun
On Seg, 2015-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason
On Seg, 2015-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason
On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto writes:
> > > >
>
On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto writes:
> > >
> > > SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we bump
>
On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto writes:
> >
> > SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we bump
> > rightmost
> > SB> version, when we change the source, we bum
On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto writes:
>
> SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we bump
> rightmost
> SB> version, when we change the source, we bump the left version, so
> we
> SB> can distinguish when we update t
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Done[1]. This is just getting dumb and we need something simpler. I
> can't even figure out how to do pre-release/post-release anymore...
+1. I added a comment to the FPC ticket as well.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.f
> "SB" == Sérgio Basto writes:
SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we bump rightmost
SB> version, when we change the source, we bump the left version, so we
SB> can distinguish when we update the source and when we updated the
SB> .spec, this contrast for me is important.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 18.11.2015 v 15:53 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Panu Matilainen
>> wrote:
>>> Right. Only took eight years for anybody to notice ;)
>>>
>>> - Panu -
>>>
>> At this point, I'm wondering why we don't use
Dne 18.11.2015 v 15:53 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Panu Matilainen
> wrote:
>> Right. Only took eight years for anybody to notice ;)
>>
>> - Panu -
>>
> At this point, I'm wondering why we don't use the ~/+ operators to
> more explicitly declare the ordering of
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Panu Matilainen
wrote:
>
> Right. Only took eight years for anybody to notice ;)
>
> - Panu -
>
At this point, I'm wondering why we don't use the ~/+ operators to
more explicitly declare the ordering of versions like Debian does. As
far as I know, RPM does
On 11/18/2015 04:15 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
On Sat 07 Nov 2015 10:18:14 AM EST Panu Matilainen
wrote:
Frankly I didn't even realize the 0.rc1.X scheme was against the
guidelines since to me this is the (obviously) correct way to do it with
predictable pre-release names (its predictable
On Sat 07 Nov 2015 10:18:14 AM EST Panu Matilainen
wrote:
> Frankly I didn't even realize the 0.rc1.X scheme was against the
> guidelines since to me this is the (obviously) correct way to do it with
> predictable pre-release names (its predictable when you're the one doing
> the upstream tarball
On Sáb, 2015-11-07 at 17:07 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:18:14 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> > Frankly I didn't even realize the 0.rc1.X scheme was against the
> > guidelines since to me this is the (obviously) correct way to do it
> > with
> > predictable pre-relea
Am 14.11.2015 um 21:33 schrieb Corey Sheldon:
Someone a few comment sback mentioned adding / updating this info to a
guide or the wiki, Which would be best the sysadmin guide and a
reference link to it in install guide (or some other quick reference
link /site/guide) ? I am willing to hea
Someone a few comment sback mentioned adding / updating this info to a
guide or the wiki, Which would be best the sysadmin guide and a reference
link to it in install guide (or some other quick reference link
/site/guide) ? I am willing to head / co-head a effort towards this end
but not sure
Am 13.11.2015 um 12:13 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 13.11.2015 um 12:09 schrieb Honza Šilhan:
From: "Reindl Harald"
would not be a topic if DNF would not be completly broken for "dnf
update *.rpm", in F22 it works sometimes while in F23 it is just
unuseable 99.9% of the time
That's an import
Am 13.11.2015 um 12:09 schrieb Honza Šilhan:
From: "Reindl Harald"
would not be a topic if DNF would not be completly broken for "dnf
update *.rpm", in F22 it works sometimes while in F23 it is just
unuseable 99.9% of the time
That's an important information, it would be great if you would c
> From: "Honza Šilhan"
> > From: "Michael Schwendt"
> > If an _upgrade_ introduces new sub-packages or new dependencies, you
> > need a method that can install those new packages *and* update older
> > installed ones at the same time. Running "rpm -U *.rpm" is like asking
> > RPM to "upgrade the
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:38:41 -0500 (EST), Honza Šilhan wrote:
>
> > "rpm -Uvh …" ~ "dnf install" - only difference is that dnf install can
> > do downgrades too if you specify the version of the package
>
> So, if you run "dnf install *.rpm" and one of the local .
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:50:16 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Personally I find "install"/"update" naming more readable than
> >> "-Uvh"/"-Fvh".
> >
> > Note that -U and -F aren't meant to be readable. They're shorthand for
> > "--upgrade" and for "--freshen" respectively
>
> but it's unexpected
On 11/12/2015 05:50 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 12.11.2015 um 16:45 schrieb Emmanuel Seyman:
* Honza Šilhan [12/11/2015 06:38] :
Personally I find "install"/"update" naming more readable than
"-Uvh"/"-Fvh".
Note that -U and -F aren't meant to be readable. They're shorthand for
"--upgrade"
Am 12.11.2015 um 16:45 schrieb Emmanuel Seyman:
* Honza Šilhan [12/11/2015 06:38] :
Personally I find "install"/"update" naming more readable than "-Uvh"/"-Fvh".
Note that -U and -F aren't meant to be readable. They're shorthand for
"--upgrade" and for "--freshen" respectively
but it's un
* Honza Šilhan [12/11/2015 06:38] :
>
> Personally I find "install"/"update" naming more readable than "-Uvh"/"-Fvh".
Note that -U and -F aren't meant to be readable. They're shorthand for
"--upgrade" and for "--freshen" respectively.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:38:41 -0500 (EST), Honza Šilhan wrote:
> "rpm -Uvh …" ~ "dnf install" - only difference is that dnf install can
> do downgrades too if you specify the version of the package
So, if you run "dnf install *.rpm" and one of the local .rpm files is
older than what is installed,
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
>
> Since you can point the program at local packages as well as things to
> fetch from remote repositories, it would be cool, if the tool were smart
> enough to do the right thing, regardless of whether you run "dnf update …"
> or "dnf install …".
>
> The former failin
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:13:04 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > "local update" used to work like that but it was requested to change
> > this behaviour and we made it consistent with "remote update" [1].
> > You probably want to use `dnf install *.rpm` as Matthew pointed out.
> [...]
> > it allows t
> From: "Matthew Miller"
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:34:18PM -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> > "local update" used to work like that but it was requested to change
> > this behaviour and we made it consistent with "remote update" [1].
> > You probably want to use `dnf install *.rpm` as Matthew poi
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:34:18PM -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> "local update" used to work like that but it was requested to change
> this behaviour and we made it consistent with "remote update" [1].
> You probably want to use `dnf install *.rpm` as Matthew pointed out.
[...]
> it allows the user
> From: "Matthew Miller"
>
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 04:24:07PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Btw, it's odd already that "dnf update rpm*.rpm" refuses to install
> > packages that are not installed as older version. Compare that with
> > "rpm -Uvh …" and "rpm -Fvh …". It would make sense to
On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 04:24:07PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Btw, it's odd already that "dnf update rpm*.rpm" refuses to install
> packages that are not installed as older version. Compare that with
> "rpm -Uvh …" and "rpm -Fvh …". It would make sense to mimic those
> two commands in tools t
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:20:25 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> but after nearly 10 years "yum update *.rpm" or "yum localupdate *.rpm"
> i have zero understanding for "dnf update *.rpm" not working properly
> over months and releases
That doesn't surprise me. I don't understand those half-hearted at
Am 07.11.2015 um 17:11 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:35:41 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
simple example:
* on my machines i try to uninstall all unneeded stuff
* koji download for testing
* a dozen of subpackages
* instead compare 5 minutes which one i need click
on all 5
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:35:41 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> simple example:
>
> * on my machines i try to uninstall all unneeded stuff
> * koji download for testing
> * a dozen of subpackages
> * instead compare 5 minutes which one i need click
>on all 5 downloadlinks and "dnf update *.rpm"
>
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:18:14 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Frankly I didn't even realize the 0.rc1.X scheme was against the
> guidelines since to me this is the (obviously) correct way to do it with
> predictable pre-release names (its predictable when you're the one doing
> the upstream tarba
Am 07.11.2015 um 16:24 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 15:48:20 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Fedora 23 was *released* with rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.3.fc23.x86_64.rpm
Yes. Multiple people have touched the package, keeping this different
versioning scheme. It's a lost cause.
your compla
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 15:48:20 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Fedora 23 was *released* with rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.3.fc23.x86_64.rpm
Yes. Multiple people have touched the package, keeping this different
versioning scheme. It's a lost cause.
> your complaints have *nothing* to do with teh fact that DNF is
On 11/07/2015 04:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:20:03 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed
0.rc1.5.fc23 ???
*sigh* My motivation to do package reviews is hurt a lot by bad examples
like that. It's as if some
Am 07.11.2015 um 15:41 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:20:03 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed
0.rc1.5.fc23 ???
*sigh* My motivation to do package reviews is hurt a lot by bad examples
like that. It's as if some
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:20:03 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed
0.rc1.5.fc23 ???
*sigh* My motivation to do package reviews is hurt a lot by bad examples
like that. It's as if some people put a lot of effort into trying to ignore
t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888
Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed
*what* is that hard to solve the dependencies of packages given with *
on the commandline when yum does that fine for a decade, frankly if you
are trying to early test fedo
46 matches
Mail list logo
