Le lundi 23 février 2009 à 11:59 -0500, Michel Salim a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> b. Version numbers do not make sense for content that is not versioned
> >
> > If the author has a versionning scheme that looks ascii ascending lets
> > use it. Otherwise I think that the following would work
> >
> > Version: 0
> > Release: 0.X.YYYYMMDD
> >
> > with YYYY year, MM month and DD day (I'd do the same for a software
> > without version, and it is indeed what I used for uread) for the document
> > date of publishing, or of access if publishing date is not known.
> >
> We'd probably want to encode the book's print edition in either
> %{version} or %{release} as well. Given that the release tag is
> normally associated with packaging rather than content changes (the
> YYYYMMDD is normally for pre-release packages), perhaps the following?
>
> Version: EDITION.YYYYMMDD
> Release: X or 0.X
If upstream does not version properly there is plenty of precedent in
the repository for using the timestamp of its releases as versions
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
