Le vendredi 16 juin 2006 à 11:16 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
> >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> RC> I'd recommend to start with V: 2.7.0 and R: 1%{?dist} and to
> RC> increment the Release tag, when a newer pre release or a final
> RC> tarball is released and exchanged inside of the spec.
>
> If 2.7.0 doesn't actually exist yet, though, it's a bit disingenuous
> to release a package that indicates that it is 2.7.0. I recall that
> this has caused problems with various upstream developers in the past.
Unfortunately for you, that's both the common practice and what the
guidelines advocate
> In the case of dejavu, a snapshot is being packaged and the naming
> guidelines are quite clear on what the package should be named in that
> case.
The guidelines say a pre-release should be numbered
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
with %{alphatag} the string that came from the version
In this particular case I didn't bother with %{alphatag} because it has
little or no use for FE users - the features tested do not depend on
which particular pre-release snapshot is used.
> Unfortunately fixing it now would require that the version go
> backwards (or something horrible like an epoch bump).
Nope.
If you really want an alphatag I can add one and it will work without
epochs or other horrible things, just because X will be incremented.
I question the value of this change though.
Also if someone could define the canonical alphatag for svn I would be
grateful. (it's not just a date it's also a number so svn alphatag is a
composition of svn date and number but in what order I can only guess)
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
