On Thursday 01 February 2007 16:50, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > JPackage's pre-release Release: tags are not Xjpp only. Was this > > considered in the draft? Some random examples: > > > > classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp > > cpptasks-1.0-0.b4.1jpp > > cryptix-asn1-0.1.12-0.cvs20011119.7jpp > > activemq3-3.2.5-0.r1125.2jpp > > radeox-0.9-0.beta.2jpp > > > > More at http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/1.7/generic/free/repodata/ > > These are old style tags, before Nicolas brought up the possible > problems with upgrade paths. My point wasn't about whether they're 0.foo.Xjpp or 0.1.foo.Xjpp, but that the draft says: "JPackage RPMS only use integers in the Release: field, in the format Xjpp" Note: 0.foo.Xjpp is not in the Xjpp format, neither is 0.X.foo.Yjpp. For example, 1jpp and 15jpp are. The draft goes on and says "If this is the case, then ..." and discusses how to take care of stuff. I just want to make sure the discussion is not based on a false assumption. I *guess* pre-release names like that are not a problem, but haven't read the draft too thoroughly to be able to tell at the moment. Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised about how much discussion and documentation and migration plans do three little "jpp" letters in the release tag really need... shrug, I really don't have an opinion beyond "if it works for and makes lifes of people working with JPackage considerably easier, and works for Fedora end users, no objections here". Dunno whether that's a +1 or 0, maybe the former. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
