I use sth. like:
%global gitrel .git%{commit_date}.%{shortcommit}
Version: 0.0.0
Release: 0.1%{?gitrel}%{?dist}
Am 27.12.2015 um 08:17 schrieb Igor Gnatenko:
I would prefer 0.0.0-0.1.git%{shortcommit}
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015, 7:33 AM Randy Barlow <randy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:randy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello!
I wanted to add a package for erlang-zlib, but I noticed that the
upstream doesn't seem to have tagged any releases at all for the
package:
https://github.com/processone/zlib/issues/6
Hopefully they will respond to my request, but if they do not, I am
curious - what is a good policy for packaging when the package doesn't
have an official version? I thought of a few schemes:
erlang-zlib-YYYY-MM-DD
erlang-zlib-0.0.YYYY-MM-DD
The above, with git hash added at the end. This could also just be
entered in the description, or as a comment in the spec file.
The first scheme is more straightforward, but if the package ever gains
a version in the future it will cause upgrade problems that will
necessitate the use of the epoch of shame.
The second might be nice because it avoids the epoch, but will only work
so long as the first version of the package that upstream does tag is at
least greater than 0.0.2016 ☺
What is the collective wisdom with problems like this? Is this situation
what the epoch is for (i.e., version schemes changing)?
--
Randy Barlow
xmpp: bowlofeggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bowlofeggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
irc: bowlofeggs on Freenode
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
-Igor Gnatenko
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
