seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. [ shrug... ] If the guideline said "non-numeric versions are bad; if you have such a package, try to persuade upstream to use a saner versioning scheme next time, and here are reasons x, y, and z to persuade them with", I'd be fine with that. As it is, all I see is an arbitrary exercise of power that will have the principal result of confusing users. The very fine fine print of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease appears to allow "6b" as a version number under the guise of "post-release packages", so we don't need to have a war about libjpeg in particular. But the whole thing reads to me like an exercise in wishful thinking. It's describing somebody's idea of what version numbering ought to be like, not what upstreams actually use in practice. regards, tom lane -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
