On Sunday, 24 November 2013 at 19:42, Mario Blättermann wrote: > Am Sonntag, 24. November 2013, 20:09:17 schrieb Panu Matilainen: > > On 11/24/2013 07:52 PM, Mario Blättermann wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > currently I'm working on Kbarcode, which is under review: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001799 > > > The current version is 3.0.0b3. No problem so far, but the next one will > > > probably be the final 3.0.0. This way I don't get a proper upgrade path. > > > Just tested with a dummy package versioned as 3.0.0b2 which I tried to > > > update with 3.0.0: > > > > > > # rpm -Uvh mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm > > > Preparing... > > > ################################# [100%] > > > > > > package mario-3.0.0b3-1.fc19.noarch (which is newer than > > > > > > mario-3.0.0-1.fc19.noarch) is already installed > > > > > > What to do in this case? I would add > > > > > > Obsoletes: %{name} = 3.0.0b3 > > > > > > Is this OK or have to do some other fixes? Maybe I could change the > > > package > > > version of the current beta release to 2.9.99? > > > > Dealing with (non-numeric) pre-release versions is explained in the > > guidelines: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning > > > > Thanks for the link! Now I'm using the following in my spec: > > Release: 1.b3%{?dist} > > The update with just 1{?dist} as usual can be installed properly. This is still wrong. You should be using the pre-release scheme, i.e.: Release: 0.1.b3%{?dist} Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
