Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 14:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
"TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes:
TC> I have added a draft for handling Post Release packages.
It might be worth mentioning what to do when upstream ODs on the
crackrock and unexpectedly changes to a non-ordered versioning scheme
in the middle of a sequence. Something like:
openssl-0.9.6g
openssl-0.9.6h
openssl-0.9.6final
Epoch is probably the only way out here unless we allow something
Just proves adding any non-numeric part to versions is a bad idea
Tom's text implies that if you take that route (alphas in versions) you
are sure that the upstream guys are not doing that and that is only a
single letter minor differentiator (i.e., it is just a single letter
license indicator, a upward moving sequence like a,b,c...).
If that cannot be guaranteed or the string is not that trivial, there is
the use of releases similar to what is done for pre-release tags.
Are you suggesting that the text should be more emphatic w.r.t. the
risks of taking the first route, perhaps?
Cheers,
Fernando
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
