[Fedora-packaging] Naming Policy (first draft)

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Thu Feb 24 15:33:33 UTC 2005

On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 11:35 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
>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.

Doing it the way I've documented makes it less likely that we'll hit the
need for Epoch in a lot of cases. And the cases like gkrellm fit in
nicely enough both ways so it can't hurt to standardize it in the
non-numeric release case for packagers that are new (or just confused).

Basically, I think the documented method is the simplest method.
Hopefully, the Fedora Core folks will see it that way as well, but if
not, we'll manage somehow. ;)
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list