Makefile/packit: Set version to "single number" only for releases

[schuellerf]

RPMs and releases should reflect if it's built from a release tag or some other commit.

Expected behavior is, that if you build a tag like "v4" the result is image-builder-cli-4.tar.gz otherwise it should visualize that this is NOT a release e.g. image-builder-cli-4.12.g30166b0.tar.gz

[schuellerf]

Seems to work - I'd really prefer this, if there is no drawback…
see

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/osbuild-image-builder-cli-58/fedora-41-x86_64/08498668-image-builder-cli/

[mvo5]

Do we have the version now twice? Looking at e.g. https://dashboard.packit.dev/jobs/copr/2118828 I see:

sudo dnf install -y image-builder-cli-4.13.gf402972-1.20250110124024754480.pr58.13.gf402972.el10.aarch64

or am I missing something?

[schuellerf]

I think the filename might be constructed from "version" and "release"

Version     : 4.13.gf402972
Release     : 1.20250110124024754480.pr58.13.gf402972.fc40

(this is the f40_x86_64 version I test-installed)
…and rpm -qi image-builder-cli-ed afterwards :-D

[mvo5]

I think the filename might be constructed from "version" and "release"

Version     : 4.13.gf402972
Release     : 1.20250110124024754480.pr58.13.gf402972.fc40

I wonder if we can consolidate this information, it seems redundant to me (to have e.g. the hash and the number of commits since the tag in both places) but then I have no idea what the policies for rpms are and will leave this to others to decide, mostly wondering.

[schuellerf]

For me the key would be that "upgrading" and "downgrading" would work better? Not sure if "release" is considered here by rpm/dnf.
(and be more obvious and human-readable, from within rpm)

[schuellerf]

…but you might be right - if "release" is respected properly - this PR is rendered an overkill :-/

[supakeen]

Release is considered and this is (almost) exactly what it is meant for. We're building version 4; with some additional commits on top, see it as if we're applying patches to version 4.

[thozza]

RPM filenames are always constructed as NVRA - name-version-release.arch. The full NVRA is taken into consideration for upgrades and downgrades.

Personally, I use COPR builds from main for our tools on my system and don't like the NVRA that's used as a result of this PR.

It is common in RPM world to use the Release to distinguish changes made to the latest upstream release. In this context, using a single digit version and adding the git ref to the Release is IMHO the common approach.