On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:15:12AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:59:52AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:53:58AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >>>>> In my personal descending order of preference I would do one of these: >>>>> Version: 0 >>>>> Release: 1.rNNN >>>> Thanks .. >>>> >>>> For the moment I've used: >>>> >>>> Version: 0.1 >>>> Release: 0.1.r11 >>> What issue are you trying to solve by this choice? >>> >>> You are not solving anything. >> >> I don't understand what you mean. > > Let me turn my question around: Why can't you directly use the upstream > version? I'm just trying to work out the best way to do this. Can you not ask cryptic rhetorical questions and just say why the version and release scheme above, derived from Toshio's one, isn't right. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
