[Fedora-packaging] Re: Post Release Naming/Tags

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Sat Mar 24 12:15:50 UTC 2007

Le samedi 24 mars 2007 à 01:52 +0100, Axel Thimm a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:18:33PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> > Our rule would be::
> >   Does upstreams version have an alpha tag?
> >     If yes, use alphatag versioning.
> The point is that we don't really want too many of the prereleases and
> therefore don't care about the (temporary) obfuscation that much (not
> that we could do anything better anyway).
> But with "postreleases" it's quite different. openssl is a prominent
> example where people will be confused to see openssl-0.9.8-8.3.b.fc6
> instead of what we currently have: openssl-0.9.8b-8.3.fc6.

IMHO people (both users and packagers) will be confused if we don't
follow consistent rules. The "what if we can reasonably expect upstream
to be sane" argument has been rejected for pre-releases (and we've
forced the java folks to change their rules accordingly) I really don't
see why it should apply for post releases

"But we've done differently in the past" is a weak argument. In the past
we had incomplete BRs and broken EVR upgrade paths, we changed stuff to
fix it, and people weren't confused.

Lastly consistent rules means we can hope to built them in some future
rpm version instead of relying on guidelines, now that rpm dev has

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/20070324/d280604e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list