Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux