Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Jesse Keating]

On Friday 14 July 2006 15:11, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
> How about this convention for Fedora:
>
> Release: %{jpackage_release_number}.%{fedora_release_number}
>
> This example becomes:
>
> foo-2.3-1jpp -> foo-2.3-1.1 -> foo-2.3-2jpp -> foo-2.3-2.1
>
> with further Fedora updates being:
>
> foo-2.3-2.1 -> foo-2.3-2.2 -> foo-2.3-2.3
>
> The release string convention for JPackage packages in Fedora would
> resemble the convention for pre-release packages.  The release field would
> no longer contain underscores or non-numeric characters, but it would still
> be easy for users and developers to see which JPackage release a given
> Fedora package was derived from.  Because the update path is preserved,
> this change could be introduced gradually, package by package.

Add to this the dist tag and I think that's pretty acceptable.  It somewhat 
breaks our <int>%{?dist}.<int> scheme, but its better than having jpp in 
there.

so %{jpackage_release_number}.%{fedora_release_number}%{?dist}

foo-2.3-2jpp -> foo-2.3-1.2.fc6

THen we can respin the .fc6 version, .fc6.1  w/out having to bump the fc7 
version which might be foo-2.3-2.1.fc7

-- 
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/20060714/5eeae293/attachment.sig>