FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-05-2011, 10:54 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On 05/04/2011 06:54 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> So this would only work if it is guaranteed that:
>
> - .centos is always added during the entire lifespan

yes, and we should be doing this

> - the version is not different but only %{dist} changes

that is irrelevant. The whole point is that the way packages are
released upstream the tag component, while present and relevant, isnt
considered in the EVR > prev.relese-EVR

- KB

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:13 AM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default Confusing package versioning

Le 05/05/11 11:59, Dag Wieers a écrit :
> On Wed, 4 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 05/04/2011 10:45 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/2011 02:35 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>>>> In such cases, would editing the SPEC file release line be the lesser of
>>>>> two evils?
>>>> maybe but it would convey the wrong message.
>>> It depends on what message you want to send. Obviously Ned is confused by
>>> how it is done now, and it makes it hard for people to match upstream
>>> packages with CentOS packages.
>>>
>>> Despite the technical reasons, if the message is to confuse those users,
>>> you are on the right track.
>> We have been doing this exactly the same for 8 years.
> Since 8 years ago some things have changed. 8 years ago there was no
> %{dist} tag. When there was a disttag, it used to be a fixed tag (eg.
> .el5), not el5_2.
>
>> There is no reason to reinvent the wheel here.
>>
>> It is very simple ...
>>
>> 1. If we do not change a package, it will have the exact same dist tag
>> as upstream.
> So a %{dist} with .el5_2 stays .el5_2 on CentOS. No problem there.
>> 2. If we do change a package, then the dist tag will always be .el5.centos.
> So a %{dist} with .el5_2.4 becomes .el5.centos.4, and there is no visual
> indication that both packages are related. Whereas .el5_2.centos.4 or
> .el5_2.4.centos would have been a more appropriate, and more correct (wrt.
> to depsolving) solution.
>
> In the above example you may have noticed that .el5_2.4> .el5.centos.4,
> while .el5< .el5.centos
>> This is not confusing, and is exactly what we have been doing since we
>> stood up CentOS.
> With the difference that things have changed in the meantime which makes
> it confusing that httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.src.rpm on RHEL5 becomes
> httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.1.src.rpm on CentOS5.

The most important thing is RHEL5_X now sligthly differs with RHEL5_Y,
and this may affect compatibility, like with the last mod_nss release.
So I have an interest to immediatly visualise that my foo package,
modified by CentOS, was rebuilt on el5_X rather than el5_Y.

JML
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:17 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thu, 5 May 2011, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:


Le 05/05/11 11:59, Dag Wieers a écrit :

On Wed, 4 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 10:45 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 May 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > > On 05/04/2011 02:35 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> > > > In such cases, would editing the SPEC file release line be the
> > > > lesser of

> > > > two evils?
> > > maybe but it would convey the wrong message.
> > It depends on what message you want to send. Obviously Ned is confused
> > by

> > how it is done now, and it makes it hard for people to match upstream
> > packages with CentOS packages.
> >
> > Despite the technical reasons, if the message is to confuse those
> > users,

> > you are on the right track.
> We have been doing this exactly the same for 8 years.
Since 8 years ago some things have changed. 8 years ago there was no
%{dist} tag. When there was a disttag, it used to be a fixed tag (eg.
.el5), not el5_2.

> There is no reason to reinvent the wheel here.
>
> It is very simple ...
>
> 1. If we do not change a package, it will have the exact same dist tag

> as upstream.
So a %{dist} with .el5_2 stays .el5_2 on CentOS. No problem there.
> 2. If we do change a package, then the dist tag will always be
> .el5.centos.

So a %{dist} with .el5_2.4 becomes .el5.centos.4, and there is no visual
indication that both packages are related. Whereas .el5_2.centos.4 or
.el5_2.4.centos would have been a more appropriate, and more correct (wrt.
to depsolving) solution.

In the above example you may have noticed that .el5_2.4> .el5.centos.4,
while .el5< .el5.centos
> This is not confusing, and is exactly what we have been doing since we
> stood up CentOS.
With the difference that things have changed in the meantime which makes
it confusing that httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.src.rpm on RHEL5 becomes
httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.1.src.rpm on CentOS5.


The most important thing is RHEL5_X now sligthly differs with RHEL5_Y, and
this may affect compatibility, like with the last mod_nss release.
So I have an interest to immediatly visualise that my foo package, modified
by CentOS, was rebuilt on el5_X rather than el5_Y.


I know, the CentOS developers are simply ignoring the relevance of this.

It seems to be their new credo.

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:19 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thu, 5 May 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:

>> The most important thing is RHEL5_X now sligthly differs with RHEL5_Y, and
>> this may affect compatibility, like with the last mod_nss release.
>> So I have an interest to immediatly visualise that my foo package,
>> modified by CentOS, was rebuilt on el5_X rather than el5_Y.
>
> I know, the CentOS developers are simply ignoring the relevance of this.
>
> It seems to be their new credo.

I am sorry for this. Because this mail arrived in my inbox, I was
confident Jean-Marc was mailing me privately. So my response is how I
reply privately. I did not intend to send this to the list.

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:21 AM
"John R. Dennison"
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:

(49 lines of noise trimmed out)

> I know, the CentOS developers are simply ignoring the relevance of this.
>
> It seems to be their new credo.

So Dag... How's DagOS coming along?




John

--
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug it.

-- Brian W. Kernighan
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:22 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On 05/05/2011 12:17 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> The most important thing is RHEL5_X now sligthly differs with RHEL5_Y,
>> and this may affect compatibility, like with the last mod_nss release.
>> So I have an interest to immediatly visualise that my foo package,
>> modified by CentOS, was rebuilt on el5_X rather than el5_Y.
>
> I know, the CentOS developers are simply ignoring the relevance of this.

by assuming that the _x and _y imply that the code is built on, you
already dont know what you are talking about

> It seems to be their new credo.

troll

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:30 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thu, 5 May 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 05/05/2011 12:17 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>>> The most important thing is RHEL5_X now sligthly differs with RHEL5_Y,
>>> and this may affect compatibility, like with the last mod_nss release.
>>> So I have an interest to immediatly visualise that my foo package,
>>> modified by CentOS, was rebuilt on el5_X rather than el5_Y.
>>
>> I know, the CentOS developers are simply ignoring the relevance of this.
>
> by assuming that the _x and _y imply that the code is built on, you
> already dont know what you are talking about
>
>> It seems to be their new credo.
>
> troll

It's funny to learn that if there was a way to prevent that mail from
being send to the list, only a few seconds after it was send, I would not
have been a troll.

I'll just assume that you would have prevented your name-calling as well,
a few seconds after you hit the "Send" button.

No problem, I'll wait for the apology mail as well.

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:34 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thu, 5 May 2011, John R. Dennison wrote:

> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> (49 lines of noise trimmed out)
>
>> I know, the CentOS developers are simply ignoring the relevance of this.
>>
>> It seems to be their new credo.
>
> So Dag... How's DagOS coming along?

We are not supposed to discuss competing projects on this list, even if
they are fictitious

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:38 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On 05/05/2011 12:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> I am sorry for this. Because this mail arrived in my inbox, I was
> confident Jean-Marc was mailing me privately. So my response is how I
> reply privately. I did not intend to send this to the list.
>

double standards based on the audience ? One of the reasons why I
respected what you had to say was based around my, seemingly false,
impression that you had conviction and honesty backing things up.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:46 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thu, 5 May 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 05/05/2011 12:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>> I am sorry for this. Because this mail arrived in my inbox, I was
>> confident Jean-Marc was mailing me privately. So my response is how I
>> reply privately. I did not intend to send this to the list.
>
> double standards based on the audience ? One of the reasons why I
> respected what you had to say was based around my, seemingly false,
> impression that you had conviction and honesty backing things up.

The arguments have been ignored mostly, but yes, I try to be less harsh on
the mailinglist. I am sure you say things privately different than
publically too, depending on who you talk to.

That said, in my mail I did not say anything new. So double standards ?
Not at all, things are just very senstitive on this mailinglist.

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:24 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org