On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/13/20 7:52 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Also, since you might want to bump the release independently in EPEL (e.g. if we discover something was wrong in the way we have packaged this), I recommend doing:
%global rhelrelease 10 %global baserelease 1 Release: %{rhelrelease}.%{baserelease}%{?dist} ... Requires: qpdf-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{rhelrelease}%{?dist}
(Assuming qpdf has regular %{dist} and not some modularity artificial value.)
Note that I've named the EPEL part of the release "baserelease", so rpmdev-bumpspec does the right thing.
If rhelrelease updates to 10.1 which will win ? ... and if we have already bumped baserelease to 2 ?
rhelrelease name baserelease 10 2 qpdf-devel-10.2.epel.rpm 10.1 qpdf-devel-10.1.rhel.rpm
Which will win ?
Right. Can we use ^ in EL8 to separate the RHEL and EPEL parts?
"^" sorts after digits (at least in ASCII and Basic Latin), so can anyone check whether qpdf-devel-10^2.epel.rpm will trump qpdf-devel-100.1.rhel.rpm or qpdf-devel-10.3.rhel.rpm ? My recollection is that there have been several different implementations of parsers for version-release checks with different twisty paths for splitting sub-components. My last RedHat based system is SL6 (sorry I moved to Ubuntu to match work) so I couldn't do a reliable test myself.