Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:26:42AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Roman Rakus wrote:
Hi,
There is a bug (#496780) requesting to use patchlevel of bash as part
of RPM version. So today bash-4.0-6.fc11.i586 would be
bash-4.0.16-6.fc11.i586. What do you think about it?
It's a bad idea.
c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Package_Version
Rule of thumb: Try to let an rpm's version match with upstream's version
whenever possible, otherwise you're very likely to meet conflicts with
upstream's versioning.
Could it break anything?
Well, not actually break, but you (rsp. the Fedora package maintainer)
are not unlikely to hit NEVR issues with upstream.
E.g. with your proposal you would be in trouble if upstream decides to
release 4.0.1 - You have to bump epoch: etc.
Upstream already uses the patchlevel in their versioning, e.g.
My recommendation: Either ignore upstream's patch-level in an rpm's NEVR
and use your own NEVR scheme, or try to incorporate upstream's
"patch-levels" into an rpm's %release, if you "feel like it".
I would not do so.
Note that there were a couple normal release tarballs like
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/bash-3.0.16.tar.gz
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/bash-3.2.48.tar.gz
It's a strange release policy,
ACK, ...
but upstream does seem to version with
three numbers, so using 4.0.17 in rpm's version field seems to make
sense.
Well, in this case, it would be appropriate to contact upstream and to
ask them why they don't release tarballs, rsp. about their plans on
their next release's version number.
(BTW it is not defining bash's version, but even wikipedia shows
bash's version to be 4.0.17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash)
Wikipedia, ... ;-)
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
