Tomas Janousek wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:02:10 +0100, Tomas Janousek wrote:
Sounds pretty logical, 4.1 > 4. No need to care about dist tags at all, imho.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:52:04PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
But you do understand that this makes the fc5 package newer than
the packages for fc6 and fc7?
Yes, I do. I don't say it was ok this case (something like [1] should have
been used), I'm arguing your statements about version comparing.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-378ec5e6a73d5425d55c115ff5d0fa5f5094dcba
And btw, it is compared like this:
4.1 > 4.fc6
Not:
4.1 > 4
And what difference does it make? I don't think your statement about the
position of the dist tag is true. Since 4.1 and 4.fc6 are compared the same as
4.1 and 4, it's ok. It's common practice to add minor release numbers for spec
changes etc. as long as one is sure it won't break the order of versions.
What Michael tries to explain is that it's also needed to ensure that
fc7 versions are "newer" then fc6 who should be "newer" then fc5 versions.
So the 4.1.fc5 should have been 4.fc5.1 in order to keep it "older" then
4.fc6
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
