Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2007-03-22

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:05:33 +0100, Tomas Janousek wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:02:10 +0100, Tomas Janousek wrote:
> > > > Sounds pretty logical, 4.1 > 4. No need to care about dist tags at all, imho.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:52:04PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > But you do understand that this makes the fc5 package newer than
> > > the packages for fc6 and fc7? 
> 
> Yes, I do. I don't say it was ok this case (something like [1] should have
> been used), I'm arguing your statements about version comparing.
> 
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-378ec5e6a73d5425d55c115ff5d0fa5f5094dcba
> 
> > And btw, it is compared like this:
> > 
> >   4.1 > 4.fc6
> > 
> > Not:
> > 
> >   4.1 > 4
> 
> And what difference does it make? I don't think your statement about the
> position of the dist tag is true. Since 4.1 and 4.fc6 are compared the same as
> 4.1 and 4, it's ok.

You compare a dist tag with a minor release number, which breaks the
entire scheme. RPM doesn't see any decimal point. It compares 4 with
4 and 1 with fc6. Same applies to

  4.0 > 4.fc6
  4.0 > 4.Gold
  4.0 > 4.a

What is the relationship between minor release 0 and "fc6", "Gold",
"a"?

> It's common practice to add minor release numbers for spec
> changes

Sure.

> etc. as long as one is sure it won't break the order of versions.

*cough* :)