On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Really? Don't expect me to adhere to that guideline when packaging > >> something whose upstream uses a letter in the version number. > >> > > Instead of complaining, get it fixed. > > > 1) Figure out what upstream version number has a problem. > > Well, I don't have to look very far: among my own packages I find > /home/tgl/f-pkg/libjpeg/devel/libjpeg.spec:Version: 6b > > It cannot possibly be a good idea to use something other than the > upstream version number in Version --- the ensuing confusion would > trump whatever rationale there might be for this guideline. > > While I hope that there will soon be a new libjpeg upstream release > that uses a more typical m.n type of number, it's folly to imagine that > Fedora can dictate upstream version numbering practices. No one said dictate. You ask to get it fixed, if possible. You cajole, bribe, etc. It's not like fedora is the only distro impacted by this. -sv -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
