Would the maintainers be adverse to bringing in the debian packaging as well?
donald On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andrew Gideon <[email protected]> writes: > > > I found that the SPEC file was somewhat out of date for Redhat or CentOS > > versions 6 and 7. I've updated it. > > > > There are branches: > > * volatile/andrew/addingrhel7support_0.99.24 > > * volatile/andrew/addingrhel7support > > > > available in http://quagga.git.tagonline.com/quagga.git where the first > > git times out, and the host does not answer ping. > > > extends adds the commits to the stable/0.99.24 branch and the latter to > > master. I hope I've followed the convention for this naming properly. > > HACKING didn't seem to have anything about feature branch naming, but I > > noticed the use of "volatile/..." in other cases. > > Thanks for actally reading HACKING :-) You are right that the feature > branch names aren't specified clearly, but they don't matter much. > > > HACKING did specify extending master. I added the branch extending > > stable/0.99.24, though, since that's the branch I happen to be using at > > the moment (and at least one other person on quagga-users has tried this > > change). > > This does seem to be an unusual situation. > > > Unfortunately, the SPEC file fixes were insufficient to have master work > > for RPM building. Another issue arose as of commit > > d8d54ab78d915921a88a8707426e307aed3c323e. In that commit, the version > > tag in configure.ac became "0.99.25-dev". The dash is rejected by > > rpmbuild (where it is used for @VERSION@ in quagga.spec.in), presumably > > because a dash is a field separator in RPM file names. > > I don't use rpms, but I suspect - is problematic in most packaging > systems. but in general (not about quagga) I think the version number > world has become a complete mess with all sorts of languages and > projects inventing new conventions and (implicitly) expecting N > packaging systems to support them. But, the notion of versions for > branches rather than releases is messy anyway. > > > I took the easy solution of changing this to a tilde, and added that to > > branch volatile/andrew/avoidDashInVersionID which further extends > > master. I'm not sure that this is the desirable approach. I believe it > > does have the advantage, though, that: > >> > > 0.99.25~dev < 0.99.25 > > > > to RPM's version ordering. > > This is not just about RPM, but about deb, pkgsrc, FreeBSD ports, and > other systems. Do you know of a specification for version numbers that > is broader than one packaging system and is generally agreed on? My > own bias is to revert to the ancient GNU standards and call it > 0.99.24.80 (80 is reserved for alpha and 90 for beta, in that scheme). > > The other thought is that generally packaging systems only package > releases, not git versions, and if they do package git they need to have > a date or something else. So the fact that the rpmbuild of git fails is > not necessarily a problem. > > There has also been some notion of removing the rpm files from quagga's > sources, on the theory that they are maintained externally by packagers. > The pkgsrc control files are not in quagga, but some ancilliary scripts > are. I know many different Linux distributions use rpm, so it has > seemed to me that removing them would be a net increase in work among > the entire Free Software community. > > > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
