Kind request: Set release version to "10"

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 09:54:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:47:48 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > > A few observations: In your repository I don't see a
> > > > > consistent platform specific release tag scheme.
> > > > 
> > > > check the dates and the discussion on fedora.us in March/April
> > > > (yes, I was once a fedora member).
> > > 
> > > Been there before I joined the fedora-devel at fedora.us
> > > list. Going through list archives is a time-consuming process. I
> > > prefer summaries of ready-to-use concepts which can be commented
> > > on as a whole.
> > > You don't answer why some of your packages have no distribution
> > > specific release tag at all and why other packages override
> > > versions found in Red Hat Linux.
> > 
> > What I wanted to say is that the versioning scheme evolved, partly
> > on its own, partly in discussion within (the old) fedora. So when
> > you find inconsistency in the repo you are seeing at different
> > layers of history.

> I fail to see that. Here's one of the packages for Shrike, which
> was touched long after the disttag discussions:

> [senseless examples skipped]

Exactly what are you trying to prove? "My repo is more consistent than
your repo"? Didn't I mention that there was evolution in the
versioning scheme, _parts of which_ were discussed with fedora.us?

(and the examples are crap also, i.e. you are ranting about mozilla's
versioning scheme, which is a verbatim copy of rawhide ...)

While the discussion with fedora.us back in March/April did create
some first specifications, others and I broke with fedora.us due to
the increased non-tolerance against other 3rd party repos.

So the maintainers of the old repos stepped back and kept and evolved
their own versioning schemes (This is a bit oversimplified, in reality
there were and are coordination efforts to keep the repos compatible).

Please don't repeat the same intolerance attitude.

> So much about consistency. There are more examples like that.
> Back to the topic.
> 
> > > Continueing Fedora Core with Red Hat Linux specific release numbers
> > > does not sound reasonable. It is like an implicit epoch.
> > 
> > OTOH you are right, but if the packages from the Fedora Project are to
> > be related to Red Hat Linux ones (e.g. you want them to be rpm-newer),
> > you need to come up with a compatible scheme.
> 
> Packages in Fedora Core 1 will be newer than any packages in Red Hat
> Linux. Only a few cases (e.g. comps, maybe comps-extras,
> redhat-release => fedora-release) need special treatment (probably an
> increased epoch).

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."

This applies here also, don't let the thread loose its topic.

> > Did you check Warren's proposal on doing the reverse? E.g. instead of
> > continuing RHL versioning into Fedora, one can back-continue Fedora
> > guidelines to the past, e.g. treat RHL8.0 as Fedora Core 0.8.0.
> 
> Yes, sounds good. It's not the first time a "0." prefix is useful.

I know, I introduced it into fedora.us for consistency, shortly before
I gave up ...
-- 
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/20031006/82030d0d/attachment.sig>