On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 16:59 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:42:47 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > 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. > > That is certainly not true. > > > Otherwise, they could resort to use: > > 2.7.0-0%{?dist}.M > > Why can't they just use the same versioning scheme? > Why and when would they supply a package, which is in Core or Extras > already, with an incompatible version than what either is in Core and > Extras or will be in Core or Extras later E.g. because * legal restrictions prohibits Core or Extras to ship them * developers use repos to ship upstream snapshots for testing. * local demands require packages neither FC nor FE ships. * packages are stuck in FE review. etc. pp. > It is extremely inconvienient and tiresome for anyone, who works on > packaging guidelines, to consider packaging scenarios for packagers who > don't adhere to the same guidelines. 3rd parties would consider FE's guidelines, if they were simple and clear. Face it: So far they are not. I hereby formally ask YOU (MS) to write them up and give clear confirmative _directions_ of how FE 3rd party packagers shall chose NEVRs that are guaranteed not to conflict with FE nor FC. I clearly doubt you'll be able to do so. > > > > xscreensaver-5.00-7.1.fc6 > > > > > > This is bad. 7.1.fc6 is newer than 7.fc7. In general, '1' > 'f'. > > > > > > Q: Are N and M supposed to be <int>? > > > > > > Yes. _But_ it's only N{?dist} and 0.N{?dist} for pre-releases. > > C.f. above. IMO, a defect of the guidelines and to be reconsider. > > > > Let's keep things simple, instead. > > Things would be simplified a lot if we didn't limit our own flexibilities > in choosing package versions and if 3rd party packagers would not create > conflicting packages. How do you think are developers supposed to package packages? Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging