On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le samedi 17 juin 2006 à 02:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 01:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:54:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forgot to mention the case I consider to be the most broken version:
> > > > * N.M%{?dist}
> > > > with unclear meaning of M
> > > >
> > > > E.g. these packages have just been released for FE6:
> > > > dejavu-fonts-2.7.0-0.15.fc6
> > >
> > > The old pre-release case, where the most-significant part of release is
> > > made 0 and hence makes it possible to ship a final 2.7.0-1.fc6 in the
> > > future without bumping Epoch.
> > IMO, an over-engineered miss-feature in the guidelines.
> >
> > It prevents 3rd party packagers to supply packages. Otherwise, they
> > could resort to use:
> > 2.7.0-0%{?dist}.M
>
> So now they have to use 2.7.0-0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist} instead of
> 2.7.0-%{X}%{?dist}, and make sure their 0.%{X}.%{alphatag} il higher or
> equal than mine just as they'd have to make sure their %{X} would be
> higher or equal to mine.
>
> News at 11, what's broken ?
Your syntax is ambiguous and utterly error-prone.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
