[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 192912] Review Request: paps

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Fri Jun 16 17:24:58 UTC 2006

Le vendredi 16 juin 2006 à 11:16 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
> >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:
> RC> I'd recommend to start with V: 2.7.0 and R: 1%{?dist} and to
> RC> increment the Release tag, when a newer pre release or a final
> RC> tarball is released and exchanged inside of the spec.
> If 2.7.0 doesn't actually exist yet, though, it's a bit disingenuous
> to release a package that indicates that it is 2.7.0.  I recall that
> this has caused problems with various upstream developers in the past.

Unfortunately for you, that's both the common practice and what the
guidelines advocate

> In the case of dejavu, a snapshot is being packaged and the naming
> guidelines are quite clear on what the package should be named in that
> case.  

The guidelines say a pre-release should be numbered


with %{alphatag} the string that came from the version

In this particular case I didn't bother with %{alphatag} because it has
little or no use for FE users - the features tested do not depend on
which particular pre-release snapshot is used.

> Unfortunately fixing it now would require that the version go
> backwards (or something horrible like an epoch bump).

If you really want an alphatag I can add one and it will work without
epochs or other horrible things, just because X will be incremented.
I question the value of this change though.

Also if someone could define the canonical alphatag for svn I would be
grateful. (it's not just a date it's also a number so svn alphatag is a
composition of svn date and number but in what order I can only guess)


Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060616/89a36174/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list