On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 02:34:15 -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote: > 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? You could add a right-most number to %release and increase that one only. But when an update is based on the most recent package revision, e.g. foo-1.0-3 is latest for rh73, foo-1.0-8 is the further developed package for rh80 which includes a few additional bug-fixes, one can base the update for rh73 on the most recent package and add a distribution specific %release postfix, e.g. foo-1.0-9.0.7.2 for rh72 foo-1.0-9.0.7.3 for rh73 foo-1.0-9.0.8 for rh80 (whether you add .0.x.y or just .x, is just for clearness). If one prefers incrementing %release strictly and keeping it short, foo-1.0-9 for rh72 foo-1.0-10 for rh73 foo-1.0-11 for rh80 doesn't really matter, other than that it pushes up the release number more quickly and you need to keep track of any changes inside the packages with a differing major %release number. --
