Le samedi 17 juin 2006 à 11:57 +0200, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> 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.
Meaning you don't like it but can't pull up any actual problem. That's
how I translate your answer anyway, and it's not enough to make me drop
common accepted practice and official FE naming guidelines.
Have a nice week-end
--
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
