On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 17:31 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 23:13 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > >> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >>> I have added a draft for handling Post Release packages. > >>> > >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PostRelease > >>> > >>> Comments are always welcomed. > >>> > >>> ~spot > >> I would appreciate it if you would argue the case > >> in which upstream uses the tarball like > >> > >> <name>-<version>-<release>.tar.gz. > >> > >> One case is ImageMagick, and the other case is: > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230560 > > IMO, in such cases the upstream "version-release" should be treated as > > rpm's "version" > > '-' is not a valid character in an rpm version. man tr %define tarvers 1.2.3-4.5.6 %define rpmvers %{expand:%(echo %tarver | tr - _)} Version: %rpmvers The real issue however is elsewhere: What is the next "upstream version" of a package, after this "version-release"? Are we talking about snapshots? E.g. gcc-4.1.2-20070123 -> final version: gcc-4.1.2 In this case, using "4.1.2-20070123" as rpmversion would be a mistake. Or are we just talking about "upstream" using versioning which doesn't fit into rpm's expectations, e.g. xxx-1-20070123 xxx-1-20070210 ... In this case, what I said above would work. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
