rpm versioning scheme (was: Kind request: Set release version to "10")

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:32:40PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> How is your current versioning scheme defined?

Extracting kernel-modules, beta/cvs and other non-trivial examples the
versioning scheme I suggest to use (note not only for myself, and not
only for RH/FC) is:

<name>-<upstream_version>-<buildnumber>_<disttag>_<optional repo id>

Where

o _ is a seperator, that could be "_", "." or under certain
  circumstances even ""

o disttag is a combination of a distid and a distversion, e.g.
  rh9, rhel3, fdr1, lsb1.3, mdk8, suse9
  should be rpm-sortable within a family, e.g. rhl/fdr should be
  sortable, rhel also, but possible rhl/fdr and rhel should not
  compare, etc.

o repoid is an identity marker like "at", "fr", "dag", "fdr"
  They are at the least significant position to not have rpm sort on them.
  repoid is optional and should not be used by vendors or first tier
  packaging repos like FC. disttag 

> > You trimmed (and maybe didn't read) the following from my previous
> > reply: "That's why I changed the Subject on the main thread to contain
> > "Fedora Legacy". If one doesn't care about past releases, you don't
> > see the problem."
> 
> I refused to quote it.

No need to comment on that, I guess ...

> Does Fedora Legacy cover "old releases of Fedora Core" (quote from
> fedora.redhat.com) or also old release from Red Hat Linux or also
> pre-Fedora 3rd party repositories?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- 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/20031007/6e1a5585/attachment.sig>