Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   CentOS Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos-development/)
-   -   Confusing package versioning (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos-development/522074-confusing-package-versioning.html)

Ned Slider 05-04-2011 01:35 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
Hi Johnny et al.,

I'd like to raise a query relating to recent package versioning.

For example, CentOS recently released the following updates:

httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.1.src.rpm
selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm

relating to the upstream packages:

httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.src.rpm
selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm

which IMHO is confusing.

In the case of selinux-policy (and others) CentOS rigorously follows the
upstream versioning, yet for httpd the versioning is different.

Firstly, IMHO it is difficult to establish that the two (httpd) packages
are indeed the same, and secondly, one wonders how CentOS might handle
the notional upstream release of httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_7.1.src.rpm, for
example.

Where it is necessary to append the centos tag, I would assume it would
be preferable to do it at the end of the existing release string thus
preserving the upstream notation.

For example,

httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.centos.src.rpm

I realise it's not easy when upstream do things like this:

Release: 45%{?dist}.1

but at the very least it would be nice if you could set %{dist} to
el5_6.centos in this case which would be a closer match to upstream

As it stands, it looks like the centos.1 was appended by CentOS and the
original upstream package was httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.src.rpm which clearly
isn't the case.

In such cases, would editing the SPEC file release line be the lesser of
two evils?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Karanbir Singh 05-04-2011 01:51 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
On 05/04/2011 02:35 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> Hi Johnny et al.,
>
> I'd like to raise a query relating to recent package versioning.
>
> For example, CentOS recently released the following updates:
>
> httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.1.src.rpm
> selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm
>
> relating to the upstream packages:
>
> httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.src.rpm
> selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm
>
> which IMHO is confusing.

not really. the .el5_6 is the distag from upstream, for all centos mod
packages since 2005 or so we've used the .el<blah>.centos as the
disttag. Comes back to the whole argument of what is a disttag and why
its there. Upstream uses it to indicate something - we just try and stay
consistent with it.

> In the case of selinux-policy (and others) CentOS rigorously follows the
> upstream versioning, yet for httpd the versioning is different.

thats because httpd is a changed package. It also means that the tests
against the packages are a bit easier than they would be for something
that isnt modified by us.

> In such cases, would editing the SPEC file release line be the lesser of
> two evils?

maybe but it would convey the wrong message.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

David Hollis 05-04-2011 02:51 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
On 05/04/2011 09:51 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 02:35 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Hi Johnny et al.,
>>
>> I'd like to raise a query relating to recent package versioning.
>>
>> For example, CentOS recently released the following updates:
>>
>> httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.1.src.rpm
>> selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm
>>
>> relating to the upstream packages:
>>
>> httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.src.rpm
>> selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm
>>
>> which IMHO is confusing.
>
> not really. the .el5_6 is the distag from upstream, for all centos mod
> packages since 2005 or so we've used the .el<blah>.centos as the
> disttag. Comes back to the whole argument of what is a disttag and why
> its there. Upstream uses it to indicate something - we just try and stay
> consistent with it.
>

Would httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.centos.1 possibly be more appropriate (albeit
long and ugly)? Just for closer matching with upstream for people that
are obsessive over such things? Or is the -45 really the main part of
the release that anyone would need to focus on (especially in the case
of a security update that addresses CVE-2011-xxxx etc etc)?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Dag Wieers 05-04-2011 03:45 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
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.

--
-- 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

Karanbir Singh 05-04-2011 03:52 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
On 05/04/2011 03:51 PM, David Hollis wrote:
> Would httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.centos.1 possibly be more appropriate (albeit

not really. Look at it from the point of view of what that el5_6
represents upstream.

also, Ned if you look back at the history of the RHEL platform you will
see that the actual tag isnt used in update comparisons.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Ned Slider 05-04-2011 05:00 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
On 04/05/11 16:52, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 03:51 PM, David Hollis wrote:
>> Would httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.centos.1 possibly be more appropriate (albeit
>
> not really. Look at it from the point of view of what that el5_6
> represents upstream.
>

The issue here is a) it's different from upstream, and b) you're not
being consistent as you rebuild some packages with the el5_6 style dist
tag but not for others.

> also, Ned if you look back at the history of the RHEL platform you will
> see that the actual tag isnt used in update comparisons.
>

Maybe, but I'm not sure if that is not more through luck than judgement?

For example, look back at:

httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_1.3.src.rpm

and

httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_2.4.src.rpm

here el5_2.4 > el5_1.3

The current CentOS scheme survives by the fact that .4 > .3 rather than
by virtue of the el5_2 > el5_1 portion of the release that takes
precedence in the upstream release. Admittedly that is the only such
example I can find for the httpd package, and it does date back to 2008.

Is that intentional on the part of upstream? I doubt we'll ever know the
answer to that.


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Karanbir Singh 05-04-2011 05:06 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
On 05/04/2011 06:00 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> The issue here is a) it's different from upstream, and b) you're not
> being consistent as you rebuild some packages with the el5_6 style dist
> tag but not for others.

The only place we change that is when its a centos mod package; not
otherwise. Changing this policy for CentOS-5 at this stage does not seem
like a good idea at all.

> httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_1.3.src.rpm
> httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_2.4.src.rpm
>
> here el5_2.4> el5_1.3

yes, but so was .el5.centos.4 > .el5.centos.3

> Is that intentional on the part of upstream? I doubt we'll ever know the
> answer to that.

it is by design, it is my understanding that the right-of %{dist} only
changes within a single point release cycle.

- KB

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Dag Wieers 05-04-2011 05:54 PM

Confusing package versioning
 
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 05/04/2011 06:00 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>
>> httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_1.3.src.rpm
>> httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_2.4.src.rpm
>>
>> here el5_2.4> el5_1.3
>
> yes, but so was .el5.centos.4 > .el5.centos.3

I think Ned's point is that .el5_1.3 is not higher than .el5.centos.4 in
two hypothetical cases. Either where a package would need a change after
an updated package. Or when the %{dist} used to be el5 and becomes el5_2.

So this would only work if it is guaranteed that:

- .centos is always added during the entire lifespan
- the version is not different but only %{dist} changes


>> Is that intentional on the part of upstream? I doubt we'll ever know the
>> answer to that.
>
> it is by design, it is my understanding that the right-of %{dist} only
> changes within a single point release cycle.

If you assume that Red Hat always changes something in the version string,
and not depends on %{dist} changing. I wouldn't be sure of that, but I
lack the resources to scan the entire list of RHEL5 SRPMs.

--
-- 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

Johnny Hughes 05-05-2011 03:51 AM

Confusing package versioning
 
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.

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.

2. If we do change a package, then the dist tag will always be .el5.centos.

This is not confusing, and is exactly what we have been doing since we
stood up CentOS.

What is confusing about this?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Dag Wieers 05-05-2011 09:59 AM

Confusing package versioning
 
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.


> What is confusing about this?

What is most confusing is that you do not appear to acknowledge what has
been reported. I am not saying this is a grave problem, but you are
ignoring the issue completely, as if Ned or me, or anyone else is wrong
to even bring it up.

It reminds me a lot like the debate about the delay of CentOS 5.6. Nobody
acknowledged that the delay has becoming longer the past years, nobody
acknowledged that this is something the project is interested to improve,
the messenger is wrong, the project is right. Discussion closed.

--
-- 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


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.