On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 13:17 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:30:57 +0100
> Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > In this case I have gdl 0.9-0.pre6.fc9. It got bumped to
> > > 0.9-1.pre6.fc9. It should be 0.9-0.pre6.fc9.1.
> >
> > However, it should have been
> >
> > 0.9-0.1.pre6%{?dist}
> > ^^
> > (!)
> >
> > to begin with, not
> >
> > 0.9-0.pre6%{?dist}
>
> that is correct. Your original scheme did not follow the guidelines,
> thus the bumper didn't deal with it as if it were a pre-release.
> Please follow the guidelines next time.
I have also noticed that all the jpp based java packages have been
updated incorrectly, and those are following the fedora jpackage package
naming guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/JPackagePolicy
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
