[mythtv] Building MythTV SVN Packages (rpm)

[Chris Petersen]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 05:28:33PM -0700, Chris Petersen wrote:
>>> This creates issues for both the packager and the developers as it
>>> gets even more confusing as to what svn the user is talking about.
>> huh?  a revision is a revision.
> 
> Is this svn from Chris' or from ATrpms' that is broken?

well, since neither atrpms nor my spec adds any patches (that I know of) 
to svn (and if yours does, it shouldn't), it would be "revision 12345" 
svn.  SVN checkout should be "pristine" exactly as the devs intend it 
to, or it would create all KINDS Of problems for bug reports.

>>> We've been trying to convince Isaac that having CVS/svn packaging is a
>>> good thing, if this starts being a fork war then he'll probably
>>> digress again.
>> I don't consider this "packaging"...  it's more "building svn but 
>> letting rpm keep track of the installed files"...  no one should be 
>> using these files without knowing how to build packages, etc.
> 
> And does your target audience know that there are no upgrade paths to
> future ATrpms packages?

My target audience is me.  But why would there be problems upgrading? 
I've gone from my svn packages to your release packages for the past 2 
releases with no trouble whatsoever.

>>>> Maybe I'll have to take a look at what you're doing now and see what
>>>> I can backport into mine.
>>> I'd had preferred if you had considered merging any valuable bits the
>>> other way, but it's your choice.
>> I've posted my changes several times over the last few months, and see 
>> no changes ever being ported to yours (or any comments about them).
> 
> I've made comments both to you and Buzz on lists and in private, I
> even reported some bugs you had in your conditionals. The most
> important comment one is that you cannot reqrite something for 90%
> stylistic preferences and 10% functional/bug parts and expect the
> other party to go through every line and compare.

I remember a handful of bug reports from you about some if-statements 
when I first wrote the spec.  None of them panned out, the spec worked 
exactly as I expected it to.  The "stylistic" changes were done 
specifically to make building easier on users -- you already know how 
many complaints you get about the atrelease tag (which is still my 
opinion that it should be hard-replaced pre-build so any src.rpm can be 
recompiled easily), I just took it a step further and documented all of 
the other options..

-Chris