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=782560 --- Comment #10 from Todd Zullinger <tmz@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-16 02:03:17 EST --- I just can't see how manufacturing a version that never existed makes sense. There was never a ruby-shadow-2.1.1. If someone does resume development of ruby-shadow and it is desirable to put it back in fedora, that's why we have epoch. If someone puts it back in without coordinating with the maintainers of rubygem-ruby-shadow, then we'll have problems no matter what -- and they are not problems that guidelines can solve. :) I don't see where the guidelines suggest (literally or in spirit) that a non-existent version (2.1.1) should be used. They clearly use the last version of foo, the package being replaced. All that is incremented is the the release field. I believe that using 2.1.1 is exactly the sort of thing that is discouraged when the text says "$obsEVR is an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple arranged so that there is a clean upgrade path, **but without gratuitously polluting the version space upwards**" (emphasis mine). If we were to use the EVR from the new package, then it would be < 2.1.2-1, if anything. But I don't believe that's what the guidelines suggest or imply. -- 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