[Fedora-packaging] Re: Post Release Naming/Tags
Jason L Tibbitts III
tibbs at math.uh.edu
Sat Mar 24 03:48:13 UTC 2007
>>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> writes:
AT> I agree that letters in versioning are a bad thing, but we should
AT> try to get that done upstream, and try to stick as much as
AT> technically sane to upstream versioning (e.g. epochs are not
AT> considered sane in this context).
I don't disagree, but if we're going to say that packagers should use
alphanumeric versioning when there's a reasonable expectation that
it will remain sanely ordered, we should at least give some thought as
to what to recommend in the case that upstream decides to abandon
Epochs are the default out here, I think. In some situations there
may be other outs. In a related case I've advocated using a version
like "1.2release" when a packager disliked Epoch:, ignored the
guidelines, used a version like "1.2beta2", and got stuck. Not
terribly pretty, but it only has to last until the next version bump
whereas Epoch is forever.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion, and I agree with what's
in the draft. We can add additional advice as necessary.
More information about the Fedora-packaging