Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843 --- Comment #15 from Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #14) > Oh, discussing Debian packaging practices is beyond the scope of a Fedora > package review request. ;) Agreed :-). > [...] > > > Version: 5.0 > > You may consider the ACPI specification version relevant, but it is not > being used for the versioning scheme of the acpica-unix archive. Where's the > benefit? My thinking was it would aid the user. However, given that the ACPI spec has never been in the versioning _before_, I can concede on that point. It doesn't really add that much. > acixf.h > #define ACPI_CA_VERSION 0x20130117 > > changes.txt > 17 January 2013. Summary of changes for version 20130117: > > https://www.acpica.org/downloads/linux.php > The current release of ACPICA is version 20130117. > > The tarball: acpica-unix-20130117.tar.gz > > http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=acpica > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/acpica-unix/+bug/1060791 Hrm. Fair enough. It would make it more difficult to find things across distros; I had not considered that part of it. > The Obsoletes/Provides pair now would be self-obsoleting > > Provides: iasl = %{version}-%{release} > Obsoletes: iasl < 20120913-7 > > and would advertise a changed versioning scheme for iasl, too. > > > > Release: 20130117.1%{?dist} > > So, I see you've returned to the official tarball release. Yup. Examining the changes in git vs the official tarball in more detail, they were not sufficient to justify going to a snapshot type of package. They were useful patches, but "nice to have" not "essential to working properly." The benefit was far outweighed by the effort for the snapshot scheme. > You invent your own versioning scheme, with the real upstream version being > part of the Release tag. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag > [...] Yes, I did, with the thought that it might be more useful (I seek to continuously improve things whenever I can...). In this case, though, the counter-arguments so far have had more weight -- and more practicality that I had not seen before. I've learned a great deal :). So let's just use the original straightforward scheme. I can work with that. That would be: Version: 20130117 Release: 1%{?dist} which should handle the Obsoletes/Provides, as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=to2f8F38qn&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review