On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 02:58:10AM -0500, David D. Eisenstein wrote: > Have a quick question for you, Tom. Is there a methodolgy in place > already for how Core and/or Extras packages are to be versioned in the > "Release:" part of the packages' .spec files? I am thinking that if > there is such, then we in Legacy will need to follow that and revise our > package numbering guidelines > (current: <http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/RPMVersioning>) > to follow it from now on. If no such methodology is used or mandated, > then does numbering of the "Release:" tag needs to be codified among all > Fedora projects? > > I look forward to your answer, Tom. Thanks! -David > > ps: How may I participate in the Packaging group? > I'll try to answer on the questions raised to Tom: The (now common to both core and extras) Fedora Packaging Guidelines http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines don't yet explicitely mention the usage of (the optional) disttags http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag but they are in common use throughout extras and will hopefully make their way to core soon. But note that the disttags used here for rhlX would generate broken upgrade paths ("rhl" > "fc"). These are very early suggestions and since extras started with FC3 it never became an actual issue, but if FL is seeking for following the packaging guidelines including disttags taking this implementation would be wrong. If there is interest in FL to introduce and use disttags before RH7.,3 and RH9 are EOL'd, RHL7.3 and RH9 would need to get disttags < fcX. Examples stated in the past were "RHL7.3" or "fc0.7.3" (upper case is less than lower case and RHL would be considered like subversions of FC0). I would vote for the first version (even though it looks like fortran/shouting) as fc0.7.3 will probably confuse end users. You can get involved with the packaging group (if you mean the newly created packaging committee) by subscribing to fedora-packaging and visiting the IRC meetings on Thursdays 16:00 UTC. Jesse Keating is also on board so there. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpFoNI60t252.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
