[Fedora-packaging] Clarification/ammendment to the "non-numeric characters are permitted in the Version: field" clause
fnasser at redhat.com
Thu Feb 8 19:37:34 UTC 2007
Hi, the Naming Guidelines has the following provision in
"Post-release packages: Packages released after a "final" version. This
usually is due to a quick bugfix release, such as openssl-0.9.6b or
gkrellm-2.1.7a. In this case, the non-numeric characters are permitted
in the Version: field."
Actually there is another case where the upstream version has
non-numeric characters: when they have dual-license and name each of
their releases with a letter to discriminate under which license that
tar ball is. This is not described above.
Furthermore, there may be additional complications (see below).
The letters vary, but here is an example:
The Saxon library has two tar balls for their 8.8 release
where B is the Open Source licensed one (and I believe and "A" marks the
If the version gets the letters in this order we would have:
That broke my scripts that separate the VR from the package name
(perhaps my regexp is not good enough).
What is the better way to handle this:
1) Do not mention the "B" at all, as we only release Open Source
licensed software anyway. But what if the two licenses are GPL and ASL
for instance? or GPL and BSD...
2) Add the letter to the name of the package (like saxon-b) and add a
virtual provides for 'saxon' (Argh! I find it ugly)
3) Leave it in the version field, but not as the first character. But
in that case, moving it to the end may get it mixed up with the case
described in the guidelines: "Packages released after a "final" version.
This usually is due to a quick bugfix release, such as openssl-0.9.6b
4) Leave it in the version field in the position where it was upstream
(and Fernando has to improve his regexps, *if* he is the only one
affected and not mock for instance).
Any ideas, suggestions, comments?
Regards to all,
More information about the Fedora-packaging