On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 2:29:25 PM CEST Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 12. 08. 20 v 10:29 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a):
> > - Copr newly provides a build-time macro %buildtag. Its format is
> > `.copr<BUILD_ID>` and is useable for auto-incrementing the package's NVR
> > in subsequent builds. It may be used in spec file like:
> >
> > Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}
>
> Not bad, but I think we don't want to promote new (and more over Copr
> specific) macro in Fedora. IHO, it would be much better if Copr modified
> the %{dist} macro appending the %{buildtag}.
It's good idea, but not as trivial as the additional tag. You need knobs
turning this on/off, etc. Patches towards this are welcome I think, but
it will not be cheap (and it will collide with e.g. %forgemeta and
others).
This isn't really a promoting of something, but mostly R&D && RFC. As a
potential _compromise_ solving the auto-bumping problem cheaply. Yeah, on
one-hand it is awesome to see how much energy our community has to to
solve the problem, but OTOH it really hurts, ... that many man-hours on
such trivial thing ...
> lso, %{buildtag} is such generic name which on one hand does not say
> anything about its purposed
Do you have ideas how to change this?
> while there is chance it might collide with something.
Yes. Unlikely, but yes. Ideas how to prevent this?
> So why you have not chosen %{buildid} or even %{coprbuildid}.
Because we didn't want to create copr-only solution. It's R&D, but if
successful, we can just use the tag as is elsewhere..
Pavel
_______________________________________________
copr-devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
