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

[Ralf Corsepius]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:15:12AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:59:52AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:53:58AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>>>> In my personal descending order of preference I would do one of these:
>>>>>> Version: 0
>>>>>> Release: 1.rNNN
>>>>> Thanks ..
>>>>>
>>>>> For the moment I've used:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Version: 0.1
>>>>>   Release: 0.1.r11
>>>> What issue are you trying to solve by this choice?
>>>>
>>>> You are not solving anything.
>>> I don't understand what you mean.
>> Let me turn my question around: Why can't you directly use the upstream  
>> version?
> 
> I'm just trying to work out the best way to do this.  Can you not ask
> cryptic rhetorical questions

These aren't rhetorical question.

My point are:
* There is nothing technically wrong with using this upstream's versioning.
* Their versioning fits well in to rpm's versioning.

=> There is no reason to introduce a diverge versioning for your packages.

> and just say why the version and release
> scheme above, derived from Toshio's one, isn't right.
It isn't technically wrong, I simply consider his proposal to be 
foolish, silly and stupid.

Ralf