https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. This is another one of those packages which shouldn't have sat around for so long. The only real question, I guess, is the issue of versioning, and it's kind of tricky. The individual components of the package have their own versions, but those are grouped into separate tarballs and those tarballs (which also appear to be versioned) are grouped into this package. So, the first question would be whether there is any point at all in separately packaging the tarballs? Usually we say that you should have one package per upstream tarball, especially if they are not released all on the same schedule. Judging from the list of files on the sourceforge page, that does seem to be the case, but then I have no idea how useful just one of those files would be without all of the other stuff in the package. If the best course of action is to have everything together in one package (which I'm not really sold on, honestly), then the question arises as to what version to use. I think what you've done is fine, though. You can never guarantee that the project won't release with an overall version, so you need to stick to '0' and use the releasse to order/date things. This isn't any kind of prerelease, so there's no point in using release numbers that all start with '0'. So 0-1.DATEsnap is OK. -- 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=yecT7431x4&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review