On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 at 16:07, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > I'm not sure where your Version == 1.0 comes from. If they're versioned > > only by date now, then you have two options. Use Version: 0 in the new > > package in anticipation of upstream eventually reintroducing semantic > > versioning. Or, Version: YYYYMMDD. Admittedly, the latter looks nicer > > and upstream already said they'll stick to it. > > > The Version == 1.0 comes from the source code of the fonts themselves. > Running 'grep "Version" *.afm' tells me that there are all files with > Version == 1.0, except two of them (which have Version If they don't have the same version then it doesn't make sense to use the version of *some* of them as base. > > If you worry about upstream versioning sanity, then stick with > > Version: 0 > > and follow the snapshot versioning guidelines. > > > > > There's also one more option, and that is to base the package on > > > upstream's git repository and the snapshot scheme, because we > > > would be using snapshot string in the package name anyway. And it > > > would also solve one more issue that upstream is not shipping > > > license files in the archive. (I have already contacted to correct > > > this.) > > > > The exact location of the source doesn't matter too much as long as it's > > official and pristine. I agree it might be better to use the git repo > > directly since it contains both the licence indication and its full > > text. > > > Upstream has heard to my request and fixed it. ( > http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697390) > > And yes, what Douhlas wrote is correct (about the 35 fonts), and I will > have that noted in the %description section. > > Anyway, since determining the Version field is still unclear, I think the > most sense to me right now is to proceed with option 2) - IOW - to bypass > the versioning from URW++ completely, and have Version field based on > snapshot string, in a way: > X.Y.Z == YYYY.MM.DD > > Or do you some problem with this approach? As I said, please do not invent the version on your own. Please apply the existing snapshot guidelines instead, i.e.: Version: 0 Release: 0.N.YYYYMMDD or Release: 0.N.YYYYMMDDgitHASH Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
