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=550277 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-25 10:57:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Does it make sense to package the client without the server? > Or is it also on the way? > > A few other comments: > > - License is GPLv2+ and not GPLv2 only > > - Could you explain your strange release number? > Currently it's 1.1.2. The first 1 seems to be your 'bump the release' thing, > if you change something and the last 1.2 is upstreams' subversion -> > 3.0.1-*1.2* > > Shouldn't this be swaped? > > Current version is 3.0.1-1.1.2, > if you change something 3.0.1-2.1.2. > New version upstream 3.0.1-1.1.3 > > If swaped: > Current version is 3.0.1-1.2.1, > if you change something 3.0.1-1.2.2. > New version upstream 3.0.1-1.3.1 > > > If not swaped, your changed version is later than the new version > ( or I didn't understand, what you wanted to do ;) ) Think the case that the upstream releases 3.0.1-1.2.1 In your versioning way, - current 3.0.1-1.2.1 - update on Fedora 3.0.1-1.2.2 - upstream releated 3.0.1-1.2.1 -> ??? -- 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