On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 04:22:24PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Okay, here's the first draft of spec changes to alter the kernel rpm
version and release fields to more closely match what the actual
upstream kernel base is. Its heavily commented at the moment to try to
explain what's going on.
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Roland McGrath wrote:
What's Patch5?
D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
kernel-2.6.spec -p 5 -d somemacro value' to verify expected N-V-R's
being set properly. Disregard the -v2 patch, use this guy instead. :)
(or just drop the Patch5
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:56:27AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Roland McGrath wrote:
What's Patch5?
D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
kernel-2.6.spec -p 5 -d somemacro value' to verify expected N-V-R's
being set properly.
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 12:33 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:56:27AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Roland McGrath wrote:
What's Patch5?
D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
kernel-2.6.spec -p 5 -d
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:47:18AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
This is why Fedora adopted the pre-release versioning scheme that we
did:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages
In the Fedora scheme, this would be
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
auto-increment.
buildid is the please set this to .me one.
fedora_build is the one to bump on commit.
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
auto-increment.
buildid is the please set this to .me one.
fedora_build is the one to bump on commit.
Can't %{fedora_build} be set based on the $Revision$ keyword,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:56:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
auto-increment.
buildid is the please set this to .me one.
fedora_build is the one to
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:47:18AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
This is why Fedora adopted the pre-release versioning scheme that we
did:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages
In the Fedora scheme, this would be
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
snip
The other crazy idea I had was to call 2.6.22-rc7
2.6.22-0.rc7.git0.1.fc8. Making fedora_build auto-increment is probably
cleaner, though it'd be nice to also have it reset on a kernel major
version rebase (either manually or
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:56:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
It's non-obvious to me what %{?buildid} is, but it seems to
auto-increment.
buildid is the please set this to .me one.
fedora_build is the
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:32:51PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:26:06PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:56:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
It's non-obvious to me
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
snip
The other crazy idea I had was to call 2.6.22-rc7
2.6.22-0.rc7.git0.1.fc8. Making fedora_build auto-increment is probabl=
y
cleaner, though it'd be nice to also have it reset on a kernel major
version rebase (either manually
Okay, here's the first draft of spec changes to alter the kernel rpm
version and release fields to more closely match what the actual
upstream kernel base is. Its heavily commented at the moment to try to
explain what's going on.
The basic approach is this:
1st fedora build of 2.6.21.5:
What about before the first -rcN tag?
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Roland McGrath wrote:
What about before the first -rcN tag?
I presume you're referring to the likes of say kernel 2.6.21-gitX, which
was post-2.6.21, but pre-2.6.22-rc1? Crap. Hadn't thought about that
case. Okay, will have to do some further twiddling to cover that case...
--
Jarod Wilson
I presume you're referring to the likes of say kernel 2.6.21-gitX, which
was post-2.6.21, but pre-2.6.22-rc1? Crap. Hadn't thought about that
case. Okay, will have to do some further twiddling to cover that case...
Yes, that's what I meant. Faking it as rc0 might be the easiest thing to
keep
Roland McGrath wrote:
I presume you're referring to the likes of say kernel 2.6.21-gitX, which
was post-2.6.21, but pre-2.6.22-rc1? Crap. Hadn't thought about that
case. Okay, will have to do some further twiddling to cover that case...
Yes, that's what I meant. Faking it as rc0 might be
What's Patch5?
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Roland McGrath wrote:
What's Patch5?
D'oh. Meant to nuke that. Inserted for testing purposes -- 'spectool
kernel-2.6.spec -p 5 -d somemacro value' to verify expected N-V-R's
being set properly. Disregard the -v2 patch, use this guy instead. :)
(or just drop the Patch5 line out of the resulting
20 matches
Mail list logo
