On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:59:20 -0500, Przemek wrote: > Essentially, these proposals can be seen as attempts to introduce a > 2-dimensional ordering: on one hand, classifying packages by their > version number, and on the other hand by a distribution. Mathematically > this is impossible---it's a well-known mathematical fact that there's no > consistent ordering relation in a complex plane. Indeed, people came up > with use cases for both version number being more important and less > important than the distribution number. If you see it like that, ordering in the 1st dimension is a problem already, because it's not always possible to map upstream versions into RPM versions without violating a strict ordering relation. Fedora's versioning guidelines avoid many pitfalls, but odd cases remain -- and situations when you want to downgrade without creating a fake package version. > I agree that this is a 'process' issue---packages should be ordered > simply by the underlying software version and release, and there should > be a distribution release QA step that simply makes sure that all > released packages from distro N+1 are newer than latest updates in distro N Especially during freeze of the development dist that's to be released as N+1. That's the time when packagers make N and N-1 move ahead of N+1 because freeze procedures. If N+1 doesn't get the same package updates *and* upgrades as the older dists [because of "issues"], it simply isn't ready to be released. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
