Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285 --- Comment #17 from Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> 2008-10-14 08:56:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > Hello Patrice, > > How would you solve this? Would you change evr to 1:0.46-0.1.alpha.fc10 ? > > Does this really justify the epoch increase? > Wouldn't that confuse people: > "oh, 0.46 finally released!" > "Oh, wait, ... Dash!, those RH &*!% always advertise different version then > they deliver!" > > But I agree to change evr that way if you do the review for me. ;-) I am indeed ready to do the review; But I really dislike epochs too. So I think that, even though it is against the guidelines, given that the package seems to be very slowly moving, and with the possibility that upstream skip one version to go straight to 0.47, for example I think that this version is right. So I propose something along: # the version is against the guidelines. However adherence to # the guideline would imply using an epoch, which is very inconvenient. # Given that this package is very slowly moving, and hoping that # upstream skip one version to go straight to 0.47, it seems better # not to use an epoch. If 0.46 is ever released, the epoch way would have # to be used, but we are better avoiding that if possible. That seems to me to be a better argumentation ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
