[Fedora-packaging] Confused by non-numeric version in release guideline

Tom Lane tgl at redhat.com
Tue Jan 13 19:16:16 UTC 2009

seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It cannot possibly be a good idea to use something other than the
>> upstream version number in Version --- the ensuing confusion would
>> trump whatever rationale there might be for this guideline.
>> While I hope that there will soon be a new libjpeg upstream release
>> that uses a more typical m.n type of number, it's folly to imagine that
>> Fedora can dictate upstream version numbering practices.

> No one said dictate. You ask to get it fixed, if possible. You cajole,
> bribe, etc.

[ shrug... ]  If the guideline said "non-numeric versions are bad;
if you have such a package, try to persuade upstream to use a saner
versioning scheme next time, and here are reasons x, y, and z to
persuade them with", I'd be fine with that.  As it is, all I see is
an arbitrary exercise of power that will have the principal result
of confusing users.

The very fine fine print of
appears to allow "6b" as a version number under the guise of
"post-release packages", so we don't need to have a war about libjpeg in
particular.  But the whole thing reads to me like an exercise in wishful
thinking.  It's describing somebody's idea of what version numbering
ought to be like, not what upstreams actually use in practice.

			regards, tom lane

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list