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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Mar 31 18:27:39 UTC 2007

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:08:31AM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 17:31 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >>Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>IMO, in such cases the upstream "version-release" should be treated as
> >>>rpm's "version"
> >>
> >>'-' is not a valid character in an rpm version.
> >
> >man tr
> >
> >%define tarvers 1.2.3-4.5.6
> >%define rpmvers %{expand:%(echo %tarver | tr - _)}
> >Version: %rpmvers
> At which point you're no longer using the exact upstream version. 
> You're using something close to it.  There are lots of ways to do 
> something close to something.  If the tarball is x.y-z, we could do 
> x.y_z-1.fc7 (version: x.y_z) or x.y-z.1.fc7 (version x.y release z.1) 
> and they'd all look valid.  But none of them follow upstream.
> I'd argue that using the latter scheme makes it look closest to 
> upstream,

Yes, but that's already all there is to it. rpm dependencies on
minimal/maximal versions get busted or you start polluting the
dependencies by parts of the %release tag. It is better to leave the
version semantics as far as possible in the %version field. We only
deviate from this when the version ordering would get out of place
like 1.0rc5 to 1.0 and we don't have a better way to do that in the
%version field alone (and epochs != better by definition ;).

For upstream not using proper separators, e.g. using a hyphen, we can
and should always embed our own, be it dots or underscores.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070331/9fa945be/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list