[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 19:23:49 UTC 2005

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote :

> On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 14:01 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >Another way to potentially look at it is that alpha/beta may
> >go in Release, but *post* release letter affixes go in Version;
> >for example, I wouldn't want to move OpenSSL to using the letters
> >in the release.
> I could see that. 
> So, basically:
> alpha/beta/pre/cvs builds that considered "pre" releases use the Release
> field to note the value as documented currently.
> "Final" release versions with characters can stay in the Version field.
> Thoughts?

This comes back to what Panu and I commented, and the gkrellm example given
in the guidelines. If the upstream version is non-numeric but has always
been "sane" to rpm version comparison, like it is the case for squid,
openssl or gkrellm, then I'm all for leaving it in the version, where it
rightfully belongs.

So if "Final" versions stay untouched and the release mangling only applies
to pre-releases, that's fine with me.


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.766_FC3
Load : 0.04 0.12 0.19

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list