On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 02:14 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: > walters@xxxxxxxxxx (Colin Walters) writes: > > >> > Yes; but you still have the rpm revision number. I am arguing for its > >> > removal entirely. > >> > >> How will you workaround non-numeric versions which would break rpmvercmp() > >> without manual revisions? > > > > Perhaps the spec file could provide a little python function to fix > > upstream versions. > > How do you fix '2.6.9-rc1'? However the kernel packagers fix it now. I don't know how they do it, but it could include: 1) Don't package -rc, backport changesets instead 2) Convert it to e.g. 2.6.8.999rc1 3) Fix RPM to have an prerelease character which sorts lower than even nothing; Debian uses '~' for this purpose, so you could use 2.6.9~rc1 which is earlier than 2.6.9 > > Or you have an override file. > > What is that? An explicit mapping from upstream versions to RPM versions, like: 2.6.9-rc1 2.6.8.99rc1 Or maybe it could use regular expressions. > > Or (preferably) you get upstream to name their versions sanely. > > Hahaha... that's a good one... I will ask Linus to use sane version > numbers. ;) Why don't you? He seems to choose versions rather randomly; IIRC there were a number of people upset when he suddenly decided to release a version with 4 components. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to ask him to use version numbers which are compatible with RPM and dpkg.
