Good point Sean, I missed the architecture when I was explaining my
understanding of the rpm naming convention.
Steve Dawes
Phone: (403) 268-5527
Email: SDawes at calgary.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 2M5 | Web:
http://www.calgary.ca
NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: speakup-bounces at braille.uwo.ca
> [mailto:speakup-bounces at braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Sean McMahon
> Sent: 2005 June 27 11:59 AM
> To: sdawes at telus.net; Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
> Subject: Re: Speakup Modified Fedora 4 Will Be Delayed
>
> The version on the rpm also has the architecture. How does
> Fedora signify what is a release and a revision? When we
> build rpms here and according to an rpm howto, major and
> minor versions are changes in the program and release numbers
> refer to changes in the rpm itself which do not reflect
> changes in the source code.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Dawes" <sdawes at telus.net>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:56 AM
> Subject: RE: Speakup Modified Fedora 4 Will Be Delayed
>
>
> > Janina,
> >
> > Granted you wrote what you did in your first post, but it
> still does not
> > explain the naming convention that you are defending.
> >
> > Tell me where I am wrong here, and what of this is
> "irrelevant speculation "
> >
> > As I understand the RPM naming convention:
> > Program name - This is the name of the application, module,
> library, etc.
> > Version Major number - the latest version of the program.
> > Minor number - the minor version upgrade number of the
> major version,
> > Revision Number - the latest revision of the minor version.
> > The rpm build number - the latest rpm of the program
> > The Distribution the program is compiled under.
> >
> > So if I have it right, then
> > kernel-2.6.11-1.136_FC4.rpm tells me the following
> > Program name - kernel
> > Major number - 2
> > Minor Number - 6
> > Revision number - 11
> > RPM build - 1.136
> > Distribution - FC4.
> >
> > There is no "idle speculation " when I read an rpm name and
> it tells me the
> > above information.
> > So, you tell me in the naming convention where there is any
> mention of the
> > level to which the kernel is patched and what has been
> patched into it, and
> > as you put it:
> > "substantively the same as 2.6.12." I know that the kernel
> is "It is a
> > 2.6.11
> > kernel", I acknowledged this fact in my earlier post and
> again above.
> >
> > How is FC not confusing the issue when they decide to make
> a 2.6.11 kernel
> > appear to be a 2.6.12 kernel by applying a number of
> patches to it and then
> > calling it a kernel that for all intent it isn't?
> >
> > There is no intent for a debate of who is right or wrong
> here Janina, all I
> > am doing is asking for clarification, and apparently, you
> aren't willing to
> > provide it.
> >
> > Oh yeah, I did do a google on this topic, and I am not the
> only one to think
> > this way.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
