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

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Fri Mar 23 21:18:33 UTC 2007

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 14:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "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
> nasty.

Note that this particular example would be very cracktastic as we're
talking about postrelease tags.. so presumably upstream has already
released openssl-0.9.6.

Which is not to say that upstream's twisted numbering scheme won't do
*something* unexpected.  Which is one reason I'd rather see us use the
%{X}.%{alphatag} syntax always.  The other reason is that using it
always makes things less complicated.  Instead of asking::

  Is this a prerelease or a postrelease?
    If postrelease, is upstream likely to use sane numbering?
      If no, use postrelease scheme
      If yes, use upstreams version until they screw up one time
    If prerelease, use prerelease scheme

Our rule would be::
  Does upstreams version have an alpha tag?
    If yes, use alphatag versioning.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070323/0a0e0678/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list