Switching to packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Ter, 2015-11-24 at 01:47 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Seg, 2015-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > > On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we > > > > > > bump > > > > > > rightmost > > > > > > SB> version, when we change the source, we bump the left > > > > > > version, > > > > > > so > > > > > > we > > > > > > SB> can distinguish when we update the source and when we > > > > > > updated > > > > > > the > > > > > > SB> .spec, this contrast for me is important. > > > > > > > > > > > > For me, the simple rule that a Release: tag less than 1 > > > > > > implies > > > > > > prerelease software, while a Release: tag of 1 or greater > > > > > > implies > > > > > > a > > > > > > post-release package, is important. So far the proponents > > > > > > of > > > > > > this > > > > > > change haven't shown what things would actually look like > > > > > > after > > > > > > this > > > > > > change, so it's hard for me to come up with a reason to > > > > > > change my > > > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > prerelease numbering can't begin with 0 and increased to 0.1 > > > > > because : > > > > > > > > > > next version of foo-0.b would be foo-0.1.b and "b">1 > > > > > > > > Nope, 1>"b" in rpm version compare. > > > > Even so, we shouldn't depend on upstream preserving sorting order > > in > > their pre-release suffixes. Numerical sorting is always monotonous. > > > > > If so, we could begging numeration with 0 for pre-release: > > > > > > foo-0.c -> foo-0.c.1 -> foo-0.1.b -> foo-0.1.b.1 -> foo-0.2.a -> > > > foo- > > > 0.2.a.1 > > > > I don't understand why you want to introduce another level of > > numbering. > > What's wrong with the current guideline? > > I'd like improve for cases that upstream doesn't make a release and > the package stays forever in a pre-release, this happens a lot with > old projects that are half dead upstream, instead of have just one > counter, we have two counters, one when upstream change the source > other when we rebuild the package, it will be better readable, to > understand if the upstream had updates or not. In this link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages ; where we read : Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages: 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist} And I'm proposing : 0[.%{X}].%{alphatag}[.%{Y}]%{?dist} is just better IMHO . > Best regards, > -- > Sérgio M. B. > > -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
