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=564520 --- Comment #13 from Alan Dunn <amdunn@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-21 23:53:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #10) > > The basic question is how to convert the version name "Beryllium 2" into > something reasonable. Sorry to have such a long conversation about > version/release id's, but upstream's version naming convention is hideous and > it's not directly covered by the Fedora guidelines. Anyway, I looked at this > for some guidance: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Version > > Since Beryllium has atomic number 4, this is subrelease 2 of the Beryllium > version, and we should prefix with "0." (see comment #5 and comment #6), then I > think we should have: > Version: 0.4.2 > > We could have a perfectly reasonable 'release' value like this, since 0.4.2 > would uniquely map to Beryllium 2: > Release: 1%{?dist} > Having a simple 'release' value has its own virtues, and that'd be quite > reasonable. > > However, what I was thinking was that many people might not understand that > version "0.4.2" was the same thing as "Beryllium 2" (unless they look up our > translation gimmick). The "Release" value is where nonnumeric version id's > hide, so I was thinking that we might use the Release field to provide that > info to users. E.G., perhaps something like this for Beryllium 2: > Release: 1.beryllium.2%{?dist} > > Then the initial release number would be incremented for each new package > release of Beryllium 2. > > Does that sound reasonable? Comments, anyone? Sounds fine to me. I've gone some of the distance toward making the revisions you wanted. New SRPM at https://www.openproofs.org/packages/frama-c/frama-c-0.4.2-1.Beryllium.2.fc12.src.rpm (spec file location is the same) Changes made: - Now has a doc subpackage, desktop file - Version name changed - cp timestamps modification - Added short tests/long tests option (short tests is default unless "with lengthy_tests") - Patch rename and justification as above - Builds in Koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2004214) thanks to fixed BuildRequires Still to do: - Talk to Medhi Dogguy about functionality of some of the patches - Get word from Fedora Legal - SELinux issues - Repackage -devel subpackage (exact contents necessary still unknown...) - SMP flags -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review