On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:28:20PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > 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. OTOH it has been adopted by most non-RH repos, and there was no comment against it from any RH people official or not IIRC. > The other method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3" for > rh73 "0.9" for rh9, and "1" for fc1. That method was proposed about 3 time VERY LOUD on the -devel list (with using fdr or whatever distid), but no RH people commented, so it was dropped or better died after a silent death in an agony of 4 or 6 weeks. > 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. "Text" is important. People want to quickly identify the origin and context of the rpm. If the numeric scheme had been chosen to be ordered (e.g. numversion_of(RH9) <_rpm numversion_of(FC1), like in the originally anticipated 7.3 < 8.0 < 9 < 10, or the retrospective reversioning of RHL to 0.7.3 < 0.8.0 < 0.9 < 1) one could use the same distid (e.g. "fdr" in one of my late proposals or even "", if you don't want any nonnumeric characters there), but see above about the acceptance of these schemes. So the rh < rhfc distid tag is the best solution avoiding heterogenous segment comparison (to retun on topic), and providing a natural boundary for human readers and rpm order parsing the like between the proper release build number and the distversion. It also fits nicely into the already established rhX scheme of dist labeling, without forcing rebuilds of pre-FC1 rpms, and obfuscation of RHL versions with a zero in front (which seems to be something RH does not want at all costs). This has all been presented on -devel, please check the archives. -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp00059.pgp
Description: PGP signature
