On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:18:14 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Frankly I didn't even realize the 0.rc1.X scheme was against the
> guidelines since to me this is the (obviously) correct way to do it with
> predictable pre-release names (its predictable when you're the one doing
> the upstream tarballs), where the versioning goes like this:
>
> 0.beta1.1
> 0.beta1.2
> 0.beta1.3
> 0.beta2.1
> 0.beta2.2
> 0.rc1.1
> 0.rc1.2
> [...]
> 0.rc1.5
> 0.rc2.1
> 1 (for the final)
And if you wanted to package a git snapshot somewhere on the middle of
that road, you would need to be creative (and e.g. avoid going from "rc1"
to "git").
No doubt -- there are versioning schemes where the alpha/beta/rc tags
can even be part of %{version}, especially if upstream is aware of the
pitfalls related to RPM version comparison. That has been a topic in
the review queue just recently.
The guidelines aren't bullet-proof either. It's just that incidents like
this raise my concerns with regard to this growing maze of packaging
guidelines and the package review process.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
