use disttag ".1" for devel to avoid confusion

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:43:46PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > which is just the same as not having any disttags at all and led to
> > > > the pain before the disttag.
> > > 
> > > It's painless. Package is only updated when somebody maintains it.
> > 
> > We hope all packages are maintained. :)
> > 
> > Just introduce a package into FC6 and F7. And then have a security
> > update. You start juggling around with reserving build tags like
> > 
> > foo-1.2.3-1 (fc6)
> > foo-1.2.3-2 (f7)
> > 
> > fix:
> > 
> > foo-1.2.3-3 (fc6)
> > foo-1.2.3-4 (f7)
> 
> or:
> 
>   foo-1.2.3-1.1 (fc6)
>   foo-1.2.3-2.1 (f7)
> 
>   foo-1.2.3-1.3 (fc6)
>   foo-1.2.3-2.2 (f7)
> 
>   foo-1.2.3-1.4 (fc6)
>   foo-1.2.3-2.2 (f7)
> 
> It has worked fine for many package maintainers for many years.

Don't talk about yourself in plural and in the 3rd person. ;)

The above makes no real sense whatsoever, you have effectively
reverted the order of buildids and disttags. BTW if that were your
intention (which you would have said so), it would make sense, I would
just not agree on doing so: If the disttag is to take precedence above
the release it needs to do so above the version, too, e..g it would
become a prefix to the epoch.

And I left the best for the end: Where's support for F8/devel?
foo-1.2.3-3.x? Or did the integers run out now? ;)

> And %dist does not help when bumping %version still breaks an ISO-based
> dist-upgrade.

I can't understand this at all. What does the media of the update have
to do with it and why does a bump of %version break anything?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- 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/20070604/d310cf05/attachment.sig>