-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 12 November 2003 01:41, Axel Thimm wrote: > o Version your rpms, so that this bug is not triggered. Therefore a > sane versioning scheme not jumping back and forth from alpha to > numeric segments is unevitable. See also the lengthy thread about it > with the disttags for the RH family finally recommended as > > rh7.3 < rh8.0 < rh9 < rhfc1 Not to start this on yet another list, but I didn't seem to see a consensus on the use of "rhfc1" to indicate fedora core 1. it's rather ugly, and causes every RH person I've talked to about it to shudder. The other method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3" for rh73 "0.9" for rh9, and "1" for fc1. If you _still_ want text, perhaps "0.rc73" and "fc1", so that we don't run into "r" being older than "f". Using text IMHO is a nono and should be avoided at all costs. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/stAk4v2HLvE71NURAnj3AKCnQXqW01tNMQX7hWFpdmVCIQGD/wCeKGNr JR5GHYY94bYgPqDTyajA6aQ= =I4kw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
