Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Jesse Keating]

On Wednesday 12 July 2006 16:58, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> And for what?  What are the technical advantages that will be obtained
> with this change?  If we knew what effect wants to be obtained we could
> perhaps think together in a better way to solve it.

Right now it is difficult to respin a release on say FC5 w/out running into 
having it be versioned HIGHER than that in FC6 or in devel.  If we're going 
to adopt the jpackage naming scheme into our guidelines there needs to be 
some thought put around this.

We recently approved the ability to add an int after the dist tag for this 
purpose, so that the release could be:

<int>%{?dist}.<int>  or once translated:

3.fc6.1

This keeps it lower than say 3.fc7 but allows for it to be respun w/out having 
to bump the fc7 version.

How can this fit into the jpp naming scheme as it stands?  Currently there is 
just 'fc', no indication which Fedora release, and there are no numbers after 
it.  This should be addressed.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- 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-maintainers/attachments/20060713/d909d121/attachment.sig>