On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:05:33 +0100, 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. You compare a dist tag with a minor release number, which breaks the entire scheme. RPM doesn't see any decimal point. It compares 4 with 4 and 1 with fc6. Same applies to 4.0 > 4.fc6 4.0 > 4.Gold 4.0 > 4.a What is the relationship between minor release 0 and "fc6", "Gold", "a"? > It's common practice to add minor release numbers for spec > changes Sure. > etc. as long as one is sure it won't break the order of versions. *cough* :) -- 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
