Distags in rpm sort order (yes, versioning again ;)

[Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano]

> > No comments from RH? Should every repository and its cat come up with
> > its own scheme creating more compatibility problems in the future?
> 
> Well, this thread is becoming old and boring and is like beating a
> dead horse, so I am giving up ;)
> 
Previously on this thread
> > disttag can be:
> >                       A               B               C
> > Red Hat Linux 7.3     fdr0.7.3        rh7.3           rh7.3
> > Red Hat Linux 8.0     fdr0.8.0        rh8.0           rh8.0
> > Red Hat Linux 9       fdr0.9          rh9             rh9
> > Fedora Core 1         fdr1            rh9.1           1fdr
> > Fedora Core 2 test1   fdr1.95         rh9.1.95        1.95fdr
>
> While I personally think that scheme A (e.g. using fedora like
> disttags for past RH releases) would solve the problems best, it only
> makes sense to me, if that would become a standard, and not only
> something atrpms follows.
> 
> Since neither RH nor any other repo really commented on this
> (constructively that is ;), I guess it means repos will go wild with
> supporting multiple RH/FC releases. I for my part will use scheme B
> (numbering FC with something higher than rh9, e.g. rh9.1, similar to
> Rex Dieter's suggestion a while back).

I'm starting to use something similar in Planet CCRMA, I was previously
using:
  rh73 -> rh80 -> rh90
(so I can't really switch to rh7.3/rh8.0/rh9 at this point)
And now I'm rebuilding for FC1 with:
  rh73 -> rh80 -> rh90 -> rhfc1
Seems to work fine. 
-- Fernando