[Fedora-packaging] PackageNamingGuidelines comments
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Mar 1 03:18:54 UTC 2005
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 03:06 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>Elliot Lee <sopwith at redhat.com> writes:
>> The stuff that could improve is eliminating "non-numeric version in
>> release". For the sake of keeping things sane and simple, the Version:
>> should normally match the upstream version. If there are versions such
>> as 0.1beta that compare as "greater than" 0.1, then epoch should be
>I do not think so; non-zero epochs should be avoided. Instead of, we
>should fix the non-numeric version numbers once and forever by changing
>rpmvercmp() (this is inspired by something which I read on the upm
>maillist but I do not have a link to it):
I don't disagree with this, however, it will require fairly intrusive
changes to rpm. You should float this idea past Jeff and see what he
thinks of it. If he accepts the idea, and it is implemented in rpm, then
we can revisit the Naming Guidelines.
However, until that point, we're stuck with the non-numeric version case
for pre-release packages.
This doesn't mean that we encourage Epoch use, far from it. In fact, if
followed (and enforced), the non-numeric version case guidelines help
prevent the need for Epoch in the majority of cases.
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