Le vendredi 14 juillet 2006 à 15:32 -0400, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Friday 14 July 2006 15:11, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > How about this convention for Fedora:
> >
> > Release: %{jpackage_release_number}.%{fedora_release_number}
> >
> > This example becomes:
> >
> > foo-2.3-1jpp -> foo-2.3-1.1 -> foo-2.3-2jpp -> foo-2.3-2.1
is 1jpp < 1.1 for rpm ?
> Add to this the dist tag and I think that's pretty acceptable. It somewhat
> breaks our <int>%{?dist}.<int> scheme, but its better than having jpp in
> there.
>
> so %{jpackage_release_number}.%{fedora_release_number}%{?dist}
>
> foo-2.3-2jpp -> foo-2.3-1.2.fc6
This one won't work, as 2jpp > 1.2.fc6
Also you need to consider jpackage may need non-integer releases (like
alphatags) as much as Fedora, so without some sort on non-ambiguious
marker between the jpp and fc release things will break.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
