Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:22:08PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: >>> Actually the 0. prefix is not neccessary it is a leftover from 3rd >>> party techniques to indicate vendor hierarchies, but it's difficult >>> to knock out people's head. >> It has nothing to do with any 3rd-party techniques in the case. The >> '0.#' instead of just '#' is so that we can rebase the release number to >> 1 on each new major kernel version, > > It has everything to do with 3rd parties and the key element here is > history: Many years ago we started to discuss the beginning of what > today became the packaging guidelines in fedora.us. One element was > what to do with packages that override the vendors' (RHL 6.x/7.x at > that time), especially when the vendor was shippijng foo-1 and one > would like to use foo-3. > > So foo-3-0.whatever was considered as a hierachy solution to allow the > vendor to catch up with the 3rd party package w/o the vendor having to > coordinate build tags with the little 3rd party repos. > > In reality many foo-1 -> foo-3 upgrades were for foo-3 = some > prerelease, so this idiom got confused for prepending a 0. to > prereleases. > > So, "0." had a semantic wandering to land where it's used now, and the > beginnings were 3rd party techniques to auto-overide their own > packages when the vendor would update his. > </history_lesson> ;) Yes, there's history behind why the "0." convention is in the packaging guidelines, but I still maintain that the 3rd-party history has/had zero bearing on the decision to use it in the kernel package. > There is nothing wrong with not using "0." to mark prereleases, it's > just Fedora legacy/tradition. I'm not a fan of resetting the build tag > anyway. I think your distaste of resetting the build tag is the real sticking point here. The main reason for "0.<buildtag>" in pre-release versioning is because the majority of people *are* fans of resetting the build tag. > But whatever the "0." the important thing is that the build tag (`#´) > remains in front even if today the sub-versioning scheme for the > kernel looks like it would automatically happen to fit in rpmvercmp > ordering. Another history lesson shows that once one thought a > versioning style would settle and work it is "usefully" extended in a > way as to break theis assumption ;) True, true... rh9 -> fc1, fc6 -> f7... :) -- Jarod Wilson jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
