On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:42:00 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> I only did a search of "BAD use of %{dist}" and "NO %{dist} tag".
> But there is a lot of rubbish:
>
> alpha9.2.fc21
> 02.6.fc21
> 0.alpha3.fc21
> 0.fc20
> 0.fc21
Starting with 0 instead of 1 is a harmless mistake some packagers do also
during review. Sometimes they have learnt that elsewhere, sometimes not
related to packaging.
> 0.rc1.1.fc21
> 0.rc18.1.fc21
> 0.rc7.git2.1.fc21
> 0.10.20070901.fc20
> 0.10.20071107.svn39.fc20
> 0.10.20081006.fc20
> 0.10.20101010git6c0a9e6.fc20
> 0.10.b5.fc20
> 0.10.beta3.fc20
> 0.10.beta.fc21
How do you determine that those like the three above are "rubbish"?
Is that beta a post-release and not a pre-release? In case of the former,
the versioning scheme would is wrong. In case of the latter, it's correct:
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist}
> 0.10.fc20
> 0.10.hg84a4013f96e0.fc21
> 0.10.pre17.fc20
> 0.10.RC2.fc20
> 0.10.rc3.fc20
> 0.10.rc3.fc21
Here it's very obviously a pre-release Release Candidate. I don't
see anything wrong with it.
> 21.20110801git913897f4.fc21
Assuming it's post-release snapshot, it's looks okay:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
