On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 08:49:22PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > I have created a new document in our wiki system: "RPM Versioning". This > document covers the naming scheme to use when creating legacy packages. > Please review and comment/change as necessary. Thanks! Sometimes during the QA/testing process, it is necessary to roll updated packages multiple times to fix minor issues. For the conflict resolution across distros case, it might be a good idea to specify a minor release number so that as an update goes through revisions one doesn't have to keep rechecking the entire distro universe. Using your example: Red Hat Linux 7.2 xsane-0.82-3.1.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.82-4.legacy.i386.rpm Red Hat Linux 7.3 xsane-0.84-2.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-9.legacy.i386.rpm Red Hat Linux 8.0 xsane-0.84-8.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-10.legacy.i386.rpm Red Hat Linux 9 xsane-0.89-3.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.89-4.legacy.i386.rpm would become: Red Hat Linux 7.2 xsane-0.82-3.1.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.82-4.0.legacy.i386.rpm Red Hat Linux 7.3 xsane-0.84-2.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-9.0.legacy.i386.rpm Red Hat Linux 8.0 xsane-0.84-8.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-10.0.legacy.i386.rpm Red Hat Linux 9 xsane-0.89-3.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.89-4.0.legacy.i386.rpm and the .0 could be incremented for each iteration of an update undergoing QA/testing. This would also help reduce "release inflation" that might interfere with a future FC package's release number that is as yet unknown (unless Red Hat will be checking FedoraLegacy before coming up with new release numbers for future FC packages?). Come to think of it, why can't we just use the incremented minor number always with the same major release number as the existing RH/FC package? Even if the existing release number has multiple components separated with periods, can we not just add a .1 after all that and keep incrementing that number for each legacy release?