On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:39:39AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> We have for quite some time figured out what to do with pre-release
> tags: 0.#.<tag>.#%{?dist}
>
> But what to do with _post_-release tags?
The reason for moving part of the version into the release (because in
1.0rc5, "rc5" *is* part of the upstream version) is to cope with rpm's
ordering w/o having to resort to Bad Unnamed Things.
But usually post-release tags are less complicated, they usually
follow a scheme like 1.2.3p1,2,3,4,... or 1.2.3a,b,c,... etc, which
are properly ordered wrt to both the "patchlevel 0" release and the
next upcoming release.
In these simple cases (which make most of the post-release taggings)
I'd say use the full version as is. Less confusing to users and fits
nicely.
If your project goes up and down with the post-releases (rpm-wise)
like 1.0 -> 1.0patch1 -> 1.0a2 then you need to split off part of the
version again and shoot the upstream authors.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp2gvfbD1smQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
