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

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Jan 13 18:07:15 UTC 2009


Toshio Kuratomi schrieb:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> This package just numbers their tarballs using the subversion release
>> number.  For example, 'r8' and 'r11':
>>
>>   http://code.google.com/p/dlfcn-win32/downloads/list
>>
>> As far as I'm aware they are not planning on using "real" version
>> numbers at any time in the future, nor have they used real version
>> numbers in the past.
>>
> Note that the crux of this statement is "at any time in the future".  If
> upstream dies and then is revitalized later and the new project lead
> starts releasing tarballs, you could need epoch to get out of the
> versioning scheme you choose.  (However, epoch does exist, so it's not
> like you can't escape).
> 
>> I don't understand which if any of these guidelines apply to this
>> case:
>>
>>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
>>
>> In particular, what should the Version be?  (And while we're at it,
>> what should the Release be?)
>>
> 
> In my personal descending order of preference I would do one of these:
> Version: 0
> Release: 1.rNNN
> 
> Version: 0
> Release: 1.DATEsvnNNN
> 
> Version: NNNN
> Release: 1
> 
> Version: rNNNN
> Release: 1
Urgh, ... insane overengineering, IMNSHO.

All you are doing is adding confusion on user-expections on versions 
strings and avoidable hassle to package maintainers.

Ralf




More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list