On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As F-11 is approaching we're getting to deal with multiple branches
> (F-10, F-11 and devel). I've noticed that several packages have
> different versions across branches. For most packages this isn't a
> problem, but for some core-packages this causes issues.
> 
> One of such packages is mingw32-filesystem. This package contains
> several RPM macros which are used to build packages. I've noticed that
> some fixes have been backported from the F-11 to the F-10 branch while
> others haven't. This can cause confusion among packagers as they have to
> keep track of the changes in each individual branch to get the
> 'BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem > XX' right.
> 
> A solution to this situation would be to keep the mingw32-filesystem
> package in sync on all branches, but I think it's best if we create a
> more general 'Package update policy' so that it's clear for all
> packagers what package versions can be expected among the different
> branches.
> 
> For this policy I'm thinking about dividing all the mingw32 packages in
> separate groups:
> 
> 1. Core packages with no native version in Fedora
> 2. Packages with a native version in Fedora
> 3. Packages with no native version in Fedora
> 
> Packages belonging to the first group are:
> - mingw32-filesystem
> - mingw32-runtime
> - mingw32-w32api
> 
> What I would like to propose is:
> - Packages in group 1 are always in sync among the different branches
>   (there may be a small delay to test changes, but eventually the
>    changes should to applied to all branches)

The problem with changing this, is that if you then need to rebuild
another library package, there's a non-trivial chance you've broken
the RPM rebuild-from-source with the rebase changes. There have been
packages broken by updates to runtime & w32apis in the past, so I
think these should all be bug-fix only.

> - Packages in group 2 are always in sync with the native version
>   of each branch

Agree. These packages should always be version + patch identical
to the native version,.

> - The update policy of packages in group 3 is fully up to the maintainer

IMHO, stable trees should never receive version rebases, particularly
important if other packages depend on them, so again bug fix only.

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
_______________________________________________
fedora-mingw mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw

Reply via email to