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

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Tue Jan 13 19:28:42 UTC 2009

Le mardi 13 janvier 2009 à 14:16 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit :

> The very fine fine print of
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
> 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.

It's describing version numbering that people undestand and that will
work in rpm.

What's wishful thinking is to think you can drop just any versionning
convention in rpm and it will magically process it.

Before this convention was written we had many cases of packagers with
the same attitude as you that blindly dropped upstream versions in rpm
and where surprised when they upgrade paths didn't work. You can see the
traces to this day in packages with insane epoch numbers used to
workaround broken versionning.

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/20090113/0704ddf6/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list