Tom Lane wrote: > 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. > Your other argument that there can be confusion when using something that is not upstream's version number has validity to it but this does not. There's no attempt by the Guidelines to change upstream's versioning practices, only how to accommodate their versioning practices within the realm of what rpm can handle. So if you still care, please draft a Guideline change. I'd probably use the user confusion argument as primary justification and propose that epoch be used when versioning problems crop up. Note that much of the information on the page would need to be rewritten to show when epoch should be used if this is the proposal. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
