Versioning for multiple releases (was Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 12:32:58 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I did start naming everyting version.92mdk to distinguish them from cooker stuff (like we are doing for security updates now). That's a start. And I think we should use it for now until we have a more permanent solution. So, anyone rebuilding cooker packages from Club should do this. I would to raise another point here quickly, but it needs its own thread: shouldn't we force release specific rpms? Too many people are using cooker rpms on stable version. Too many people are using rpms for different versions on their stable version. I've already suggested something like this in a previous thread. I thought about a distribution epoch for all packages, so that official packages are always newer than backported packages. I agree. This would solve the Texstar KDE-3.1.4 for 9.1 upgrade problem (which some users are experiencing). I don't think there is any other solution which would provide for this. This would need some rpm changes, so that a package built on 9.2 would have an epoch of 92 and one build on 10.0 would have epoch 100. But this would be a problem with packages that already has an epoch, as you can use only integer numbers for the epoch tag. It could also cause some problems for Requires/BuildRequires with epoch values? Any BuildRequires/Requires with an existing Epoch value would need to be bumped also, which makes for some additional 'macro-isation' for the packager, and makes it difficult to automate this. The problem of your naming is that you have to change it by hand. I'd like to rebuild a cooker package on a stable distribution version and have it's release changed automatically. Ideally, we should be able to rebuild SRPMS from cooker on any release automatically, and still be able to upgrade them to a newer distro with older base packages. For instance, say mozilla-1.5 goes into cooker. Say it is rebuilt for 9.1 (well, we have this already with the Club 1.5-0.91mdk package). The user upgrades to 9.2, and mozilla-1.4 doesn't ugrade and the user may end up with some problems. I think it the distribution-specific Epoch is to be used, it needs to be done by RPM, and any epoch in a spec file needs to be incremented with the distro epoch. I don't think it is feasible to do it with rpm macros (since you will have trouble with existing epoch values). BTW, for reference some people may want to read the proposal Fedora has, but note that it doesn't address the newer packages on old release than on current release-issue, since their Vepoch is used in the release tag. Also, they don't require the use of the Vepoch it seems. Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/qoBKrJK6UGDSBKcRArUTAKC9Ycfc0IlwprZMAclD/N80dc9W8QCgjn3L GS87fvAMgSt8XDXCasQtl1o= =Yy9/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 10:18:57 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Greg Meyer wrote: Are we going to see updated ATI kernel modules for the 9.2 kernel updates? wrong question, should be: are we going to see SRPMS for any version at all. I'll be happy to recompile but am not going to duplicate the effort. I've already duplicated that efford. Here are my unoffical packages, adding the missing applications as well: http://wwwra.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~waschk/Mandrake/SRPMS/ATI_GLX-3.2.8-1gpw.src.rpm Doesn't compile unless I patch spec: @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ make cd ../fglrx/fglrx_gamma xmkmf -make +make INCLUDES=-I../../../../usr/X11R6/include EXTRA_LIBRARIES=-L../../../../usr/X11R6/lib %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -m 644 -D usr/include/GL/glxATI.h %buildroot%_prefix/X11R6/include/GL/glxATI.h d.
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Greg Meyer wrote: Are we going to see updated ATI kernel modules for the 9.2 kernel updates? wrong question, should be: are we going to see SRPMS for any version at all. I'll be happy to recompile but am not going to duplicate the effort. d.
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 10:18:57 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Greg Meyer wrote: Are we going to see updated ATI kernel modules for the 9.2 kernel updates? wrong question, should be: are we going to see SRPMS for any version at all. I'll be happy to recompile but am not going to duplicate the effort. I've already duplicated that efford. Here are my unoffical packages, adding the missing applications as well: http://wwwra.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~waschk/Mandrake/SRPMS/ATI_GLX-3.2.8-1gpw.src.rpm http://wwwra.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~waschk/Mandrake/SRPMS/ATI_kernel-2.4.22.23mdk-3.2.8-1mdk.src.rpm Götz, you work to hard:) Any objections if I put them on club (with obsoletes for the in-house version?) d.
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 11:39:35 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Götz, you work to hard:) Any objections if I put them on club (with obsoletes for the in-house version?) You can do everything the license permits. Please don't forget to upload the source rpms to the club. -- What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), Non-Violence in Peace and War
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 11:39:35 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Götz, you work to hard:) Any objections if I put them on club (with obsoletes for the in-house version?) You can do everything the license permits. Please don't forget to upload the source rpms to the club. Packages uploaded by contributors *must* have SRPMS, otherwise the binaries won't be uploaded to the web server. Unfortunately there isn't such a restriction for the packages put up there by Mandrakesoft. Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/pjWyrJK6UGDSBKcRAmIyAJ97pZe9t7F8EyeGhYSS2EpzPf0+jQCgkRU3 7zPaRPvF3lZxJoj5Sy2IfPA= =PubL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 10:18:57 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Greg Meyer wrote: Are we going to see updated ATI kernel modules for the 9.2 kernel updates? wrong question, should be: are we going to see SRPMS for any version at all. I'll be happy to recompile but am not going to duplicate the effort. I've already duplicated that efford. Here are my unoffical packages, adding the missing applications as well: http://wwwra.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~waschk/Mandrake/SRPMS/ATI_GLX-3.2.8-1gpw.src.rpm http://wwwra.informatik.uni-rostock.de/~waschk/Mandrake/SRPMS/ATI_kernel-2.4.22.23mdk-3.2.8-1mdk.src.rpm Götz, you work to hard:) Any objections if I put them on club (with obsoletes for the in-house version?) d. Danny, I have open a club request for these drivers http://www.mandrakeclub.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=RPMfunc=info_pageRID=1611 Maybe you could link them to the entry ? BTW, maybe that would be necessary to rename the patch name to mdk to uniformise, if Gotz doesn't mind ? Cheers Eric
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 11:04:53 Uhr MET, schrieb Eric Fernandez: Danny, I have open a club request for these drivers http://www.mandrakeclub.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=RPMfunc=info_pageRID=1611 Maybe you could link them to the entry ? BTW, maybe that would be necessary to rename the patch name to mdk to uniformise, if Gotz doesn't mind ? You mean rename the release suffix from gpw to mdk? BTW I don't like that the club packages have the mdk suffix, as they could be mixed up with official packages. Couldn't this be changed to something else? -- What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), Non-Violence in Peace and War
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 11:39:35 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Götz, you work to hard:) Any objections if I put them on club (with obsoletes for the in-house version?) You can do everything the license permits. Please don't forget to upload the source rpms to the club. In contrast to inhouse made rpms, we are obliged to upload srpms, otherwise the upload is rejected. d.
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 11:04:53 Uhr MET, schrieb Eric Fernandez: Danny, I have open a club request for these drivers http://www.mandrakeclub.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=RPMfunc=info_pageRID=1611 Maybe you could link them to the entry ? BTW, maybe that would be necessary to rename the patch name to mdk to uniformise, if Gotz doesn't mind ? You mean rename the release suffix from gpw to mdk? BTW I don't like that the club packages have the mdk suffix, as they could be mixed up with official packages. Couldn't this be changed to something else? perhaps, would need discussion on club-volunteers. Everyone has to do it, and the scripts have to parse everything correctly. Given the amount of time/money that is currently going to club infrastructure I wouldn't bet on this. I did start naming everyting version.92mdk to distinguish them from cooker stuff (like we are doing for security updates now). I would to raise another point here quickly, but it needs its own thread: shouldn't we force release specific rpms? Too many people are using cooker rpms on stable version. Too many people are using rpms for different versions on their stable version. Can't urpmi complain about this? Perhaps not for noarch rpms, but certainly for binary stuff it would be nice. It probably would require each package to get a release tag. d.
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
On Monday 03 November 2003 05:48 am, Götz Waschk wrote: Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 11:39:35 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Götz, you work to hard:) Any objections if I put them on club (with obsoletes for the in-house version?) You can do everything the license permits. Please don't forget to upload the source rpms to the club. Thank you, Thank you , Thank you. Oh, and did I say thank you :-) -- /g Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book, inside a dog it's too dark to read -Groucho Marx
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
Am Montag, 3. November 2003, 12:32:58 Uhr MET, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I did start naming everyting version.92mdk to distinguish them from cooker stuff (like we are doing for security updates now). That's a start. I would to raise another point here quickly, but it needs its own thread: shouldn't we force release specific rpms? Too many people are using cooker rpms on stable version. Too many people are using rpms for different versions on their stable version. I've already suggested something like this in a previous thread. I thought about a distribution epoch for all packages, so that official packages are always newer than backported packages. This would need some rpm changes, so that a package built on 9.2 would have an epoch of 92 and one build on 10.0 would have epoch 100. But this would be a problem with packages that already has an epoch, as you can use only integer numbers for the epoch tag. The problem of your naming is that you have to change it by hand. I'd like to rebuild a cooker package on a stable distribution version and have it's release changed automatically. CU -- What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), Non-Violence in Peace and War
[Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
Are we going to see updated ATI kernel modules for the 9.2 kernel updates? -- /g Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book, inside a dog it's too dark to read -Groucho Marx
Re: [Cooker] Updated ATI Kernel Modules
On Sunday 02 November 2003 07:00 pm, Greg Meyer wrote: Are we going to see updated ATI kernel modules for the 9.2 kernel updates? yes these are much more um well they are very needed. -- -~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~- Brook Humphrey Mobile PC Medic, 420 1st, Cheney, WA 99004, 509-235-9107 http://www.webmedic.net, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Holiness unto the Lord -~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-
