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.
Wrong. Mike Harris replied each time it was proposed in support. And while other RHatters did not reply publicly, behind the scenes several have gave the thumbs up. I could ask them to confirm on list if you really wish.
This has all been presented on -devel, please check the archives.
Simultaneously you have ignored the thread on the same list of "Warren's Package Naming Guidelines" which have widespread support from pretty much everyone except those who agreed to your "rhfc1" type naming. Instead this same camp took mainly to bickering about the "refusal to cooperate" which I later admitted did not belong in that document. I did appreciate that Dag Wieers however did have constructive comments about the package naming guidelines.
I suppose I should have posted my thoughts at the time when seeing "rhfc1" but I couldn't think of a nicer way of expressing "idiotic". I also admit I wasn't taking your proposal seriously. Now I have. I believe it is inherently problematic in so many ways. I also find it strange that you are pushing the "rh9" < "rhfc" reason while also supporting the RPM upgrade proposal. It seems contradictory to me.
Warren
