Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 2

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:49:39 +0100, Aurelien Bompard wrote:

> These guidelines seem fine, thanks for the work.
> 
> However, I have recently bumped into a package naming problem which doesn't
> seem to be covered here. It's a program called K3B, a CD/DVD burning
> frontend for KDE.
> Here is their release numbers : 0.8 -> 0.9 -> 0.10
> How should we set the RPM fields without using epochs in this type of
> versionning ? Is is a case where epoch is necessary ?

Not a problem at all:  10 > 9 > 8

Btw, find k3b 0.10.2 and k3b i18n 0.10 src.rpms for Red Hat Linux 9
and Fedora Core here:
 
  https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=885
  https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=886

This may look a bit like an advertisement, but as with all the other
packages in the http://fedora.us/QA  package queue, feedback is
always appreciated.

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031108/5705044f/attachment.sig>