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 #25 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-16 12:04:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #21) > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ) > Even though it is done, I didn't meant 0.3b to be a pre-release. This was wrong > according to the naming system. I want to fix this, rather than sticking to the > wrong format of name that I used. Please suggest what to do. > I want to name the versions now on as recommended by Fedora packaging > guidelines. Like 0.3.1, 0.3.2, ... , 0.4.0.b, 0.4.1 and so on. Just do so from later version. As you already released 0.3b before 0.3, 0.3b must be a pre-release for 0.3 (don't change the already released one). However from now on you can use 0.4b for post release of 0.4 (however I think 0.4.1 or so is more understandable). -- 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