Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1654901
| Summary: | RFE: rpm should support upstream caret versioning | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | James Antill <james.antill> |
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Panu Matilainen <pmatilai> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Eva Mrakova <emrakova> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 8.0 | CC: | carl, fweimer, james.antill, mdomonko, mhroncok, ngompa13, pmatilai |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Triaged |
| Target Release: | 8.0 | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | rpm-4.14.2-34.el8 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-04-28 16:51:12 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1681093, 1765187 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1778685 | ||
|
Description
James Antill
2018-11-30 00:37:32 UTC
That PR also wasn't able to actually build packages with a caret dependency in them. We're not going to pull untested and unproven patches headlong into RHEL just like that. Such features should be weatherproofed in Fedora first, which thank goodness is possible nowadays that the Fedora builders are no longer running on RHEL. Also being in RHEL has proven to mean absolutely nothing for ability to use, see bug 825087. You have testcases, if you want more then write some more. It's a small amount of code and if nobody uses the feature it shouldn't change anything (negatively or otherwise). EPEL is still a thing so it's not going to get "weatherproofed" from actual use in Fedora until FPC doesn't have to split the versioning guidelines, which won't happen for years if you don't pull this into RHEL within a fairly short amount of time. Obviously when you've released an rpm that's already on a users system that has it then they can try it with copr repos. etc. ... but you can have that be possible tomorrow with f29 updates/etc. So, from my point of view, you have two realistic choices: 1) Pull it into rhel8 and also push it into rawhide/etc. and get as much "real" testing as possible before rhel8, to see if there are any remaining problems, then people can start using it in Fedora next year. 2) Wait 5+ years. The feature is not in any released version of RPM and is not properly tested. Do you have any business justification why to implement it in RHEL 8? Otherwise the RPM team would prefer to close the request on RHEL 8. *** Bug 1724418 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Since my bug was just closed as a dupe of this one... The Fedora Packaging Guidelines for snapshot versioning are in the process of being revised for Fedora 31 to leverage the new carat modifier for version comparison[1]. Currently, the proposed changes[1] assume that EL8 will not support this, and so there will be a fracture in how packaging snapshot versions will occur between EL8 and Fedora. It would be great if this feature was backported into the EL8 rpm so that this doesn't happen, especially as EPEL 8 hasn't even launched yet. By doing this, it will make it so that one of the biggest changes coming to the packaging guidelines will also remain compatible with EL8, supporting backports from Fedora into EL8 for years to come without having to do spec versioning rewrites or other weird things. [1]: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/908 The backports seem to have introduced bug 1777226. Yes, the richdep check got mistakenly pulled in, and now reverted in rpm-4.14.2-35.el8. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2020:1835 |