[Fedora-packaging] [DRAFT] Post Release Naming/Tags

Fernando Nasser fnasser at redhat.com
Fri Mar 23 20:36:20 UTC 2007

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 à 14:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
>>>>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes:
>> TC> I have added a draft for handling Post Release packages.
>> It might be worth mentioning what to do when upstream ODs on the
>> crackrock and unexpectedly changes to a non-ordered versioning scheme
>> in the middle of a sequence.  Something like:
>> openssl-0.9.6g
>> openssl-0.9.6h
>> openssl-0.9.6final
>> Epoch is probably the only way out here unless we allow something
> Just proves adding any non-numeric part to versions is a bad idea

Tom's text implies that if you take that route (alphas in versions) you 
are sure that the upstream guys are not doing that and that is only a 
single letter minor differentiator (i.e., it is just a single letter 
license indicator, a upward moving sequence like a,b,c...).

If that cannot be guaranteed or the string is not that trivial, there is 
the use of releases similar to what is done for pre-release tags.

Are you suggesting that the text should be more emphatic w.r.t. the 
risks of taking the first route, perhaps?


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list