Distags in rpm sort order (yes, versioning again ;)
Axel Thimm
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
Fri Oct 31 11:20:37 UTC 2003
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:58:46AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> ==================== Disttag schemes: pick one!
>
> Here are the discussed schemes (some others exist with small
> variations, e.g. fc instead of fdr, or no fdr tag at all, the
> discussion is the same). Default versioning is (no cvs/beta, kernel
> modules and special cases, leave that for another thread):
>
> <name>-<upstream version>-<releasenumber><disttag><non sort relevant suffixes, e.g. repoid>
> e.g. simply
> foo-1.2.3-4.<disttag>.johnsmith
>
> disttag can be:
> A B C
> Red Hat Linux 7.3 fdr0.7.3 rh7.3 rh7.3
> Red Hat Linux 8.0 fdr0.8.0 rh8.0 rh8.0
> Red Hat Linux 9 fdr0.9 rh9 rh9
> Fedora Core 1 fdr1 rh9.1 1fdr
> Fedora Core 2 test1 fdr1.95 rh9.1.95 1.95fdr
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:53:03PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Just to be 100% clear I am soon posting my revised package naming
> counter-proposal for fedora.redhat.com.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 11:22:27PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Dist Tag for Normal Packages:
> %{X}.%{disttag}
> Where %{X} is the vepoch and %{disttag} is a distribution tag from this
> table:
>
> 0.7.3 Red Hat Linux 7.3
> 0.8 Red Hat Linux 8
> 0.9 Red Hat Linux 9
> 1 Fedora Core 1
> 1.93 Fedora Core 1.93 beta
> 1.94 Fedora Core 1.94 beta
> 2 Fedora Core 2 beta
So this is scheme A, with the variation of dropping the distid.
--
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/20031031/352389ba/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list