(Move section about rawhide lagging further down. Still needs work.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* To ensure proper ordering between updates to a package within a Fedora release, as well as between Fedora releases. Within a release, Fedora does not allow package versions to go backwards, so the versioning scheme must produce successive versions which increase monotonically, even if the upstream versions don't have this property when compared using RPM's version comparison function. The versioning scheme also ensures that for a package built at the same time for two different Fedora releases, the version in the newer release sorts higher than the version in the older release. | * To ensure proper ordering between updates to a package within a Fedora release, as well as between Fedora releases. Within a release, Fedora does not allow package versions to go backwards, so the versioning scheme must produce successive versions which increase monotonically, even if the upstream versions don't have this property when compared using RPM's version comparison function. The versioning scheme also ensures that for a package built at the same time for two different Fedora releases, the version in the newer release sorts higher than the version in the older release. | ||
=== Version Tag === | === Version Tag === | ||
Revision as of 22:14, 19 October 2016
In Fedora, the package versioning scheme (which encompasses both the Version: and Release: tags, as well as Epoch:) balances two separate goals:
- To provide information about the version of the packaged software to users. When a package version does not correspond directly to the upstream version of the software, some useful information is conveyed such as the date a snapshot was taken or whether a pre- or post-release version has been packaged.
- To ensure proper ordering between updates to a package within a Fedora release, as well as between Fedora releases. Within a release, Fedora does not allow package versions to go backwards, so the versioning scheme must produce successive versions which increase monotonically, even if the upstream versions don't have this property when compared using RPM's version comparison function. The versioning scheme also ensures that for a package built at the same time for two different Fedora releases, the version in the newer release sorts higher than the version in the older release.
Version Tag
The Version field in the spec is where the maintainer should put the current version of the software being packaged. If the version is non-numeric (contains tags that are not numbers), you may need to include the additional non-numeric characters in the release field.
There are four cases where the version contains non-numeric characters:
- Pre-release packages: Packages released as "pre-release" versions, prior to a "final" version. Example tags include "alpha", "beta", "rc", "cvs". Unfortunately, we cannot simply put these letters into the version tag, so we use the Release field for this. Details can be found here: Non-Numeric Version in Release
- Post-release packages: Packages released after a "final" version. These packages contain the same numeric version as the "final" version, but have an additional non-numeric identifier. Details can be found here: Non-Numeric Version in Release
- Snapshot packages: Packages built from cvs or subversion snapshots. These packages could be either "pre" or "post" release packages. Details can be found here: Non-Numeric Version in Release
rpm-4.10 and above support the Debian-style tilde character which causes a piece of the version to sort before anything else. At the moment, using this is not permitted for these reasons:
- it is not necessary when the following release tag guidelines are followed properly.
- it introduces another special character to achieve something which can be handled in other ways.
Release Tag
The release tag of packages which are not pre- or post-release or snapshots must consist of a positive integer release number and a %{?dist} tag: 42%{?dist}. When a minor change (spec file changed, patch added/removed) occurs, or a package is rebuilt to use newer headers or libraries, the release number is incremented. If a major change (new version of the software being packaged) occurs, the version number is changed to reflect the new software version, and the release number is reset to 1. It is important to follow these guidelines because automated tools will occasionally be used to increment releases and rebuild packages.
Non-Numeric Version in Release
There are three cases in which non-numeric versions occur in the Release field:
- Snapshot packages
- Pre-release packages
- Post-release packages
Snapshot packages
Snapshot packages contain data about where the snapshot came from as well as ordering information for rpm. The information about the snapshot will be called %{checkout} in this section.
%{checkout} consists of the date that the snapshot is made in YYYYMMDD format, a short (2-5 characters) string identifying the type of revision control system or that this is a snapshot, and optionally, up to 13 characters (ASCII) alphanumeric characters that could be useful in finding the revision in the revision control system.
For instance, if you create a snapshot from a git repository on January 2, 2011 with git hash 9e88d7e9efb1bcd5b41a408037bb7cfd47220a64, %{checkout} string could be any of the following:
20110102snap 20110102git 20110102git9e88d7e
If the snapshot package is considered a "pre-release package", follow the guidelines listed in Pre-Release Packages for snapshot packages, using the %{checkout} that you decide on above. (For instance, in kismet-0-0.3.20040204svn, 20040204svn is the %{checkout})
If the snapshot is a "post-release package", follow the guidelines in the Post-Release Packages section. Where the %{posttag} in that section is the %{checkout} string you decided on above.
Example (post-release cvs):
kismet-1.0-1%{?dist} (this is the formal release of kismet 1.0)
kismet-1.0-2%{?dist} (this is a bugfix build to the 1.0 release)
kismet-1.0-3.20050515cvs%{?dist} (move to a post-release cvs checkout)
kismet-1.0-4.20050515cvs%{?dist} (bugfix to the post-release cvs checkout)
kismet-1.0-5.20050517cvs%{?dist} (new cvs checkout, note the increment of %{X})
Pre-Release packages
Non-numeric versioned "pre-release" packages can be problematic so they must be treated with care. These are cases where the upstream "pre-release" version has letters rather than simple numbers in their version. Often they have tags like alpha, beta, rc, or letters like a and b denoting that it is a version before the "final" number. Unfortunately, we cannot simply put these letters into the version tag, so we'll use the Release field for this.
Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist}
Where %{X} is the release number increment, and %{alphatag} is the string that came from the version.
In this case, the period '.' is used as the delimiter between the release number increment, and the non-numeric version string. No other extra characters may appear in the Release field. This is to prevent Release values such as "3jpp_2fc.42-spotwashere%{?dist}".
Examples
| Source Archive | Description |
|---|---|
mozilla-1.4a.tar.gz |
(this is a pre-release, version 1.4a of mozilla) |
mozilla-1.4.tar.gz |
(this is what the 1.4 release will actually look like) |
| Release Tag | Explanation |
mozilla-1.4-0.1.a%{?dist} |
(so, this is the acceptable Fedora %{name}-%{version}-%{release})
|
mozilla-1.4-1%{?dist} |
(and this is what the 1.4 release Fedora %{name}-%{version}-%{release} should be)
|
| Source Archive | Description |
|---|---|
alsa-lib-0.9.2beta1.tar.gz |
(this is a beta release of alsa-lib, version 0.9.2beta1) |
| Release Tag | Explanation |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.1.beta1%{?dist} |
(this is the correct Fedora %{name}-%{version}-%{release})
|
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.2.beta1%{?dist} |
(this is an incremented Fedora %{name}-%{version}-%{release}. Note that the first 0 is not incremented.)
|
| Release Tag | Explanation |
|---|---|
kismet-0-0.1.20040110svn%{?dist} |
(this is a pre-release, svn checkout of kismet) |
kismet-0-0.2.20040110svn%{?dist} |
(this is a bugfix to the previous package) |
kismet-0-0.3.20040204svn%{?dist} |
(this is a new svn checkout, note the increment of %{X})
|
kismet-1.0-1%{?dist} |
(this is the formal release of kismet 1.0) |
| Release Tag | Explanation |
|---|---|
mozilla-1.4-0.1.a%{?dist} |
(this is the Fedora package for 1.4a, as above) |
mozilla-1.4-0.2.a%{?dist} |
(this is the first patch on top of 1.4a) |
mozilla-1.4-0.3.a%{?dist} |
(this is another new patch on top of 1.4a) |
mozilla-1.4-0.4.b%{?dist} |
(this is the first build after upgrade to 1.4b) |
mozilla-1.4-0.5.b%{?dist} |
(this is a new patch on top of 1.4b) |
mozilla-1.4-1%{?dist} |
(this is after moving to 1.4 "final", and to a normal version) |
mozilla-1.4-2%{?dist} |
(this is a new patch on top of 1.4 "final") |
| Release Tag | Explanation |
|---|---|
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.1.beta1%{?dist} |
(this is the Fedora package for 0.9.2beta1, as above) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.2.beta1%{?dist} |
(this is a new patch on top of 0.9.2beta1) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.3.beta2%{?dist} |
(this is after upgrading to 0.9.2beta2) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.4.beta3%{?dist} |
(this is after upgrading to 0.9.2beta3) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.5.beta3%{?dist} |
(this is a new patch on top of 0.9.2beta3) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.6.rc1%{?dist} |
(this is after upgrading to 0.9.2rc1) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.7.rc2%{?dist} |
(this is after upgrading to 0.9.2rc2) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-1%{?dist} |
(this is after upgrading to 0.9.2 "final", version becomes normal) |
alsa-lib-0.9.2-2%{?dist} |
(this is a new patch on top of 0.9.2 "final") |
Post-Release packages
Like pre-release packages, non-numeric versioned "post-release" packages can be problematic and also must be treated with care. These fall under two generic categories:
- Properly ordered simple versions. These are usually due to quick bugfix releases, such as openssl-0.9.6b or gkrellm-2.1.7a. As new versions come out, the non-numeric tag is properly incremented (e.g. openssl-0.9.6c) or the numeric version is increased and the non-numeric tag is dropped (openssl-0.9.7). In this case, the non-numeric characters are permitted in the Version: field.
- When upstream uses versions that attempt to have meaning to humans instead of being easy for a computer to order. For example, GA1, CR2, PR3. In this case, the non-numeric string can be put in the Release: field using the following syntax:
%{X}.%{posttag}
In this syntax, %{X} is the release number increment, and %{posttag} is the string that came from the version. Here, the period '.' is used as the delimiter between the release number increment and the non-numeric version string. No other extra characters may appear in the Release field.
Example (complicated post-release):
foo-1.1.0-0.1.BETA%{?dist} (this is a prerelease, first beta)
foo-1.1.0-0.2.BETA1%{?dist} (this is a prerelease, second beta)
foo-1.1.0-0.3.BETA2%{?dist} (this is a prerelease, third beta)
foo-1.1.0-0.4.CR1%{?dist} (this is a prerelease, candidate release 1)
foo-1.1.0-0.5.CR2%{?dist} (this is a prerelease, candidate release 2)
foo-1.1.0-1%{?dist} (final release)
foo-1.1.0-2.GA1%{?dist} (post release, GA1)
foo-1.1.0-3.CP1%{?dist} (post release, CP1, after GA1)
foo-1.1.0-4.CP2%{?dist} (post release, CP2, after CP1)
foo-1.1.0-5.SP1%{?dist} (post release, SP1, after CP2)
foo-1.1.0-6.SP1_CP1%{?dist} (post release, SP1_CP1, after SP1)
It is important to be careful with the post-release scheme, to ensure that package ordering is correct. It may be necessary to use Epoch to ensure that the current package is considered newer than the previous package. In such cases, the packager should try to convince upstream to be more reasonable with their post-release versioning.
Also, packagers using the post-release scheme should put a comment in their spec file with a brief description of the upstream conventions for naming/versioning that are being worked around.
The %{?dist} Tag
Use of the %{?dist} tag in the Release field is mandatory.
Please refer to the Packaging:DistTag documentation for the details on the appropriate way to do this.
Minor release bumps for old branches
Sometimes, you may find yourself in a situation where an older branch needs a fix, but the newer branches are fine. For example, if foo = 1.0-1%{?dist} in F40 and F41, and only F40 needs a fix. Normally, you would need to bump the release in each of the branches to ensure that F40 < F41, but that is a waste of time and energy for the newer branches which do not need to be touched.
In this case, you can add an extra digit (prefixed by a period) to the very end of the release tag in the F40 branch, instead of bumping it the usual way.
Example:
Release: 1%{?dist}
Release: 1%{?dist}.1
This will make a foo-1.0-1.fc40.1 package, which is still less than the foo-1.0-1.fc41 package in the F41 branch.
As necessary, the last digit (the minor release bump) can be incremented on a per-branch basis as needed. However, this must never be used in rawhide, because it is always unnecessary there. Simply increment the appropriate portion of Release: in rawhide.
BE CAREFUL WITH THIS! You always want to make sure that packages in branches can be upgraded to packages in more recent branches. Or to put it simply, F40 < FC41 < F42. There is a tool in the rpmdevtools package called rpmdev-vercmp. This tool will prompt you for two sets of Epoch, Version, and Release, then tell you which is considered newer by rpm.
Rawhide is allowed to lag
XXX Needs work. Might not be at the right place in this document.
The one time where we temporarily break the upgrade path is from released Fedora to rawhide. It is allowable to temporarily have a higher EVR in a released Fedora vs rawhide in cases where we need to get a fix out to users of the Fedora releases quickly (for instance, for a security issue) but the fixed package does not currently build in rawhide (for instance, because of a change in a dependent library that requires porting effort). The changes should be checked into Fedora's SCM for rawhide although there is not yet a build and getting a rawhide build that restores the upgrade path should be a priority.
rpm's understanding of what package is newer comes from the values of the Epoch, Version, and Release tags. The next few sections explain what values to use in those tags to ensure that the EVR consistently increases.
Old examples from introduction
In Fedora we want to ensure that there is always an upgrade path from Fedora release to Fedora release and from Fedora release to the packages in updates. To do that we need to make sure the packages in the newer Fedora releases have an equal or higher Epoch:Version-Release (EVR) than the ones in older releases. For example, Fedora-40 ships with foo-1.0-1.fc40 and Fedora-41 ships with foo-1.0-2.fc41. This example shows that the Fedora-41 package will properly upgrade the Fedora-40 package.
A more complex example. Fedora-40 ships with foo-1.0-1.fc40 and Fedora-41 ships with foo-1.0-2.fc41. Fedora-40 gets an updated foo package: foo-1.0.1-1.fc40. This update is EVR higher than the package Fedora-40 shipped with so that's good. However, it is also EVR higher than what Fedora-41 shipped with so we need to make a Fedora-41 update at the same time, likely: foo-1.0.1-1.fc41. making that update means that someone updating from Fedora-40 with updates enabled will get the correct package on Fedora-41 with updates enabled.