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

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 20:16:50 UTC 2009

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Your other argument that there can be confusion when using something
that is not upstream's version number has validity to it but this does
not.  There's no attempt by the Guidelines to change upstream's
versioning practices, only how to accommodate their versioning practices
within the realm of what rpm can handle.

So if you still care, please draft a Guideline change.  I'd probably use
the user confusion argument as primary justification and propose that
epoch be used when versioning problems crop up.  Note that much of the
information on the page would need to be rewritten to show when epoch
should be used if this is the proposal.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090113/8326395a/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list