New Doc Review Request

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 02:34:15 -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote:

> Come to think of it, why can't we just use the incremented minor
> number always with the same major release number as the existing RH/FC
> package?  Even if the existing release number has multiple components
> separated with periods, can we not just add a .1 after all that and
> keep incrementing that number for each legacy release?

You could add a right-most number to %release and increase that one only.

But when an update is based on the most recent package revision,
e.g. foo-1.0-3 is latest for rh73, foo-1.0-8 is the further developed
package for rh80 which includes a few additional bug-fixes, one can base
the update for rh73 on the most recent package and add a distribution
specific %release postfix, e.g. 

  foo-1.0-9.0.7.2 for rh72
  foo-1.0-9.0.7.3 for rh73
  foo-1.0-9.0.8   for rh80

(whether you add .0.x.y or just .x, is just for clearness). If one prefers
incrementing %release strictly and keeping it short,

  foo-1.0-9  for rh72
  foo-1.0-10 for rh73
  foo-1.0-11 for rh80

doesn't really matter, other than that it pushes up the release number
more quickly and you need to keep track of any changes inside the packages
with a differing major %release number.

--