Richard W.M. Jones schrieb:
This package just numbers their tarballs using the subversion release
number. For example, 'r8' and 'r11':
http://code.google.com/p/dlfcn-win32/downloads/list
As far as I'm aware they are not planning on using "real" version
numbers at any time in the future, nor have they used real version
numbers in the past.
I don't understand which if any of these guidelines apply to this
case:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
Not quite. These guidelines are referring to assuring consistency of common
upstream pre-release/alpha-/beta- (eg. 1.2.3pre1), upstream
post-release/bugfix
(e.g. 1.2.3fix1), VCS/date-versioning (e.g. 1.2.3-20081230) schemes with
"pure numerical" versioning schemes (e.g. 1.2.3).
In particular, what should the Version be? (And while we're at it,
what should the Release be?)
rpm-wise, versions and releases are mere "strings", with complex
comparision-operations attached to them.
I.e. there is no requirement to have mere numerical %version-%releases,
strings are allowed.
The only restriction is each package's NEVR to be steadily increasing
between different versions of a package, wrt. rpm's version comparision
operations.
I.e. if I understand your case correctly (upstream using r<N>), you
could directly use their version strings as %version and chose %release
at your personal preference.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
