[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Build version (build tag?) in RPM (Discussion #2031)

[Aleksandra Fedorova]

> Forget about Koji, Copr. Or OBS. Solve the task on a local level first. I.e. in plain Mock on the command line.

I agree that Mock is a reference implementation for this. But I'd say we need to have build system in mind here. We can not forget about build system, we just need to be build-system-agnostic.

> The filename is already long. And 3rd party users (look into Stackoverflow questions) already use foo.rpm removing the VRA from the filename. Not even mention the dist tag.

Do I understand correctly that rpm, dnf, mock and other tooling operate on rpm metadata and don't use filename for anything? So filename only matters for the external user, like a sysadmin who tries to do something with the list of filenames without proper metadata access?

> On the other hand, make sure that the outcome does not go against idea of reproducible builds.

I think reproducible builds is all about comparison rules, but to start comparing things you need to build and store them under unique names anyway.

> The number should be self-explanatory. I.e. when we use disttag fc36 people know what it is. Compared to ID number from the row from PDC.

I think this topic is in scope of a build system, not RPM metadata. Things like Koji Build Id or "timestamp of the src.rpm build" are self explanatory for that system, but RPM knows nothing about them.

> Even for automatic rebuilds you may want to know the reason: Rebuild because of new Python. Mass rebuild of all packages (just because). Rebuild because of a new definition of macro X...

This is interesting topic indeed. We want to build things without changing the dist-git sources, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't track the reasons for the rebuild. Should it be tracked on a build system side or we need a "binary changelog" next to the "spec changelog" in the rpm itself?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2031#discussioncomment-2638628
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/2031/comments/2638628 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20220426/0bb27ac4/attachment.html>