On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:26:11 -0500, Orcan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:31:27 -0500, Tony wrote:
> >
> >> On 09-11-21 06:40:45, drago01 wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > You misunderstood me, I was not suggesting adding another epoch but
> >> > simply bump the %{epoch} for every release.
> >>
> >> If this were really important to do, just putting the release first in
> >> the version would take care of it without dragging in Epochs.
> >
> > That's %build number (= super-Epoch) style:
> >
> > 1-2.10 < 2-2.10 < 3-2.10 < 4-2.20 < 5-2.3 (!) < 6-2.31 < 7-2.40
> > ... [a year later] ... 1337-3.0 < 1338-3.0 < 1339-3.10
> >
>
> This has the same effect as bumping the release tag on every update
> and not resetting it to 1 on upstream releases, and make the Release
> tag take precedence over the Version tag. Wasn't this proposed before?
Yeah, long ago. It doesn't fix much and even bears a higher risk of
breaking versioned Req/Obs/Conf/BR in ways that have been covered before
in this thread.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
