On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi all,
it was recently pointed out that Vdsm 4.18.3 rpms have -0 release number, like in
rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/vdsm-4.18.3-0.fc23.x86_64.rpm
But this is OK only for packages built from master. From stable branch and official releases, we should have something like
rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/vdsm-4.18.3-1.c2e510e.fc23.x86_64.rpm
or perhaps just
rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/vdsm-4.18.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
If we want to follow the fedora packaging guidelines ([1]), There are three cases in which non-numeric versions occur in the Release field: - Snapshot packages - Pre-release packages - Post-release packages So, being this a release candidate, in theory we should avoid including a checkout tag in the package name. It's instead a good practice for snapshot builds. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
To quickly unblock 4.0, I posted
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/59337/ - please consider this a quick fix and review as such
To properly address the versioning, I posted my take here
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/topic:new-release
This is not marked a draft, yet I posted mostly as discussion material, I'm not confident this is really (or completely) the proper way to go.
Please share your thoughts.
-- Francesco Romani RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D Phone: 8261328 IRC: fromani _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel