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=607584 --- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-15 14:57:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > SPEC Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec > SRPM url: > http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm > > I have updated wordgroupz code a bit. I got rid of the python-nltk dependency. > I extracted only the code required for accessing wordnet dictionary from > python-nltk. So will this new update be considered as a post release? In the > Naming Guidelines, the naming format of post releases is given to be > %{X}.%{posttag}. But if I change the wordgroupz version number from 0.3 to > 0.3.1, then do I still require postag? > > Or will %{release-number}%{?dist} will suffice for the Release field? Well, what is pre-release or post-release is actually what the upstream (in this case you). - If you once released 0.3 and then released 0.3a, then 0.3a is a post-release of 0.3, and when using 0.3a tarball for rpm, you should use "0.3-%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR. - But in this case you released 0.3a before releasing 0.3. In that case you should use "0.3-0.%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR (so please chanage %changelog: Correct one is: ---------------------------------------------------------- Fri Jul 23 2010 rtnpro <rtnpro@xxxxxxxxx> 0.3-0.1.b - Release version 0.3b ---------------------------------------------------------- ) And if you release 0.3.1, you don't have to use %{alphatag} or %{posttag}, and you can use 0.3.1-%{X}%{?dist} for EVR. -- 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