Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490061 --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-05-28 16:09:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Sorry i dont understand this one; i read the guidelines and it seems to be > > correct to version the package 0.5.1c, as it is the third bugfix release under > > version 0.5.1 > > I was under the impression that characters were not allowed in releases and are > always moved to the release field. But you are correct, the wiki does not say > so explicitly. If you like you can stick with 0.5.1c-1%{?dist}, but I'd prefer > 0.5.1-1%{?dist}.c Guido's numbering is correct, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_package "Properly ordered simple versions. These are usually due to quick bugfix releases, such as openssl-0.9.6b or gkrellm-2.1.7a. As new versions come out, the non-numeric tag is properly incremented (e.g. openssl-0.9.6c) or the numeric version is increased and the non-numeric tag is dropped (openssl-0.9.7). In this case, the non-numeric characters are permitted in the Version: field. " -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review