Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
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
These aren't rhetorical question.
My point are:
* There is nothing technically wrong with using this upstream's versioning.
* Their versioning fits well in to rpm's versioning.
=> There is no reason to introduce a diverge versioning for your packages.
and just say why the version and release
scheme above, derived from Toshio's one, isn't right.
It isn't technically wrong, I simply consider his proposal to be
foolish, silly and stupid.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
