On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 02:23:48PM -0500, Elliot Lee wrote: > > You're definitely right that there will always be some special cases, and > > we'll have to deal them on a one-by-one basis. In that particular special > > case, I'd prefer to use "1.0beta1" as the version. > > But of course that sorts after "1.0", meaning that an epoch is required for > the final release. (Yup) > > However, the existence of this special case above doesn't prove that epoch > > is bad or the wrong way to handle things. It's important to keep the users > > in mind - their package searching and updating lives would be made a lot > > easier if the Version: is as close to upstream whenever possible. > > But epochs make it even more confusing for "the users", since they're a) > arbitrary and b) mostly invisible. That's a good point. At the same time, if epoch is used correctly, it will be used only to help rpm comparisons along, and in that case being invisible is a benefit. It's sounding like most people are comfortable with a policy of "Use upstream version in Version:, unless rpm comparisons will get messed up, in which case you should munge the Release: using the guidelines given". -- Elliot
