Toshio Kuratomi schrieb:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
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.
Note that the crux of this statement is "at any time in the future". If
upstream dies and then is revitalized later and the new project lead
starts releasing tarballs, you could need epoch to get out of the
versioning scheme you choose. (However, epoch does exist, so it's not
like you can't escape).
I don't understand which if any of these guidelines apply to this
case:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
In particular, what should the Version be? (And while we're at it,
what should the Release be?)
In my personal descending order of preference I would do one of these:
Version: 0
Release: 1.rNNN
Version: 0
Release: 1.DATEsvnNNN
Version: NNNN
Release: 1
Version: rNNNN
Release: 1
Urgh, ... insane overengineering, IMNSHO.
All you are doing is adding confusion on user-expections on versions
strings and avoidable hassle to package maintainers.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
