[Fedora-packaging] PackageNamingGuidelines comments

Matthias Saou thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net
Thu Feb 24 19:27:52 UTC 2005

Elliot Lee wrote :

> You're definitely right that there will always be some special cases, and
> we'll have to deal them on a one-by-one basis. In that particular special
> case, I'd prefer to use "1.0beta1" as the version.
> However, the existence of this special case above doesn't prove that
> is bad or the wrong way to handle things. It's important to keep the
> in mind - their package searching and updating lives would be made a lot
> easier if the Version: is as close to upstream whenever possible.

Sure, but you've got to make the balance with what Ville just posted... ok,
I'm probably a bit biased, but just like him, I think that the current
"workaround", which is properly documented and easy to follow is definitely
worth it. Oh, that and "epochs are a nightmare"... just ask jbj, he's
probably seen some of the wildest bug reports ;-)


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.766_FC3
Load : 0.27 0.12 0.15

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list