Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: seaview - Graphical multiple sequence alignment editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239282 ------- Additional Comments From Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx 2007-05-08 03:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > To me it seems pointless to prefix the date with a 0. in this case. You will > never have a number low enough that upstream can't trump you and release > something like 0.01 which would be < EVR than yours. I would think this would > be the perfect case for an epoch if upstream gets a clue and versions the > package at a later date. This got me thinking, and I had another look at what we currently have in FC-6. I think it would actually make more sense to put zero as a version number, and follow the pre-release snapshot guidelines for the release number. This way, when upstream so decides, there is a very good probability that the version assigned will be higher than zero (0) and we avoid the epoch thing. Deal ? new SPEC: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/seaview.spec new SRPM: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/seaview-0-0.20070417.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review