On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 23:15 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 12:57 -0700, Garrick Staples wrote:
> > > zaptel-1.4.0-3.fc6.beta2
> > > zaptel-1.4.0-3.fc5.beta2
> >
> > Aren't these nvrs incorrectly formed?
>
> Yes, they're against the guidelines, but it can't be fixed without an
> Epoch bump before the next upstream version following 1.4.0 which is
> definitely not worth it. And as long as there's something to the left
> of the non-numeric version part that can override it in the release tag
> (in this case, "3" trumps "beta2"), the issue is very much cosmetic -
> all it means is that when the final non-beta version is out, its release
> tag can't start from 1%{?dist}.
Erp... soo many guidelines, too few working braincells. Yeah, I has
just planned on bumping the initial integer with each new release (beta
or non beta).
Jeff
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
