More thoughts on the packaging work Tommy did... - Version numbers must be sane for revisionhistory entries. In the install-guide there was a 1.0rc1 followed by 1.0, which is decidedly *not* sane. (Ever the lemming, I then followed suit with 1.01rc1, which I have since eliminated in favor of 1.0.1 and followed by 1.0.2.) In the future, no alphabetics should be used. Runup to a X.0 should be $(X-1).9.9 or something similar. Remember that in RPM packaging terms, IIRC, 0.99 > 0.12 > 0.9.9, so we should probably eliminate any weirdness with double-digit numbering. Using x.y.z where both y and z are less than 10 is probably the right way to do things. If you need something even more minor, just make it x.y.z.n instead. - I made just a couple cosmetic changes to spec.xsl to be consistent with FE guidelines. - I wonder if it would be wise to have a change to the DTD which offers a 'release' in addition to 'version' for a 'revision', such that: <revision date="Sat Nov 25 2005" version="0.1.3" release="1"> would be allowed. The latest release number would be the thing that appears in the %release tag. The 'release' element that falls directly inside 'rpm-info' would be eliminated. There is always a chance that things have to be repackaged because an OMF or .desktop file is updated -- or even the spec template -- but not the doc content, which calls for a release bump, not a version bump. Is such a thing possible, Tommy? Just some quick ideas... I'm not really conversant with a lot of XSLT stuff so I may piddle around with this, but not expecting great things as a result. ;-) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
