[Fedora-packaging] Naming Policy (first draft)

Matthias Saou thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net
Thu Feb 24 10:35:56 UTC 2005

Panu Matilainen wrote :

> Thanks, looks good. One thing which is open to discussion I think is 
> post-release non-numeric versions like 1.0 -> 1.0a where the 'a' doesn't 
> *have* to move to release tag from rpm's POV. I don't mind either way, 
> perhaps it's best to KISS (like the current draft has) and simply move 
> *all* non-numeric bits to release instead of having separate cases for 
> pre- and post-releases.

Same here... the gkrellm post-release example where the "a" is moved to the
release doesn't seem necessary to me, as it'll go incrementing. Pretty much
like 1.0 -> 1.0pl1 -> 1.1 which won't cause any trouble.

But I think I'm merely pointing this out as RH/FC has always left
post-release version tags like these in the version... and like Panu, I'm
not against the change, especially since it's now so well documented ;-)

Great work Spot! (and those who wrote the original bits too)


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.766_FC3
Load : 0.32 0.30 0.27

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list