Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 2

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:04:42 -0500 (EST), Mike A. Harris wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
> 
> >These guidelines seem fine, thanks for the work.
> >
> >However, I have recently bumped into a package naming problem which doesn't
> >seem to be covered here. It's a program called K3B, a CD/DVD burning
> >frontend for KDE.
> >Here is their release numbers : 0.8 -> 0.9 -> 0.10
> >How should we set the RPM fields without using epochs in this type of
> >versionning ? Is is a case where epoch is necessary ?
> 
> Release: 0.8
> Release: 0.9
> Release: 0.10
> 
> What's the problem?

As a follow-up here (someone should have changed the subject line early!),
the k3b maintainer has been so kind to delete the News section at k3b.org
which asked packagers to increase the Epoch for the step from 0.9 to
0.10. 

It's too late, however, since all or some of the k3b rpms are shipped with
Epoch 1. But at least one source of misinformation is gone.

Some (or just one?) of the k3b.org packagers (no names known ;) have had
the impression that RPM version comparison would not allow a normal
upgrade from 0.9 to 0.10.  No idea whether they had discussed it on some
mailing-list. But apparently, internal communication had lead to a wrong
news release that the step from 0.9 to 0.10 would require the Epoch to be
increased. It's a common misconception that RPM versions are compared as
floating-point numbers or strings. Probably there are wrong HOWTOs
somewhere.

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031119/55cffe0f/attachment.sig>