Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2007-03-22

[Manuel Wolfshant]

Tomas Janousek wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:02:10 +0100, Tomas Janousek wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Sounds pretty logical, 4.1 > 4. No need to care about dist tags at all, imho.
>>>>         
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:52:04PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>   
>>> But you do understand that this makes the fc5 package newer than
>>> the packages for fc6 and fc7? 
>>>       
>
> Yes, I do. I don't say it was ok this case (something like [1] should have
> been used), I'm arguing your statements about version comparing.
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-378ec5e6a73d5425d55c115ff5d0fa5f5094dcba
>
>   
>> And btw, it is compared like this:
>>
>>   4.1 > 4.fc6
>>
>> Not:
>>
>>   4.1 > 4
>>     
>
> And what difference does it make? I don't think your statement about the
> position of the dist tag is true. Since 4.1 and 4.fc6 are compared the same as
> 4.1 and 4, it's ok. It's common practice to add minor release numbers for spec
> changes etc. as long as one is sure it won't break the order of versions.
>   
What Michael tries to explain is that it's also needed to ensure that 
fc7 versions are "newer" then fc6 who should be "newer" then fc5 versions.
So the 4.1.fc5 should have been 4.fc5.1 in order to keep it "older" then 
4.fc6