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

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:58:46AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> ==================== Disttag schemes: pick one!
> 
> Here are the discussed schemes (some others exist with small
> variations, e.g. fc instead of fdr, or no fdr tag at all, the
> discussion is the same). Default versioning is (no cvs/beta, kernel
> modules and special cases, leave that for another thread):
> 
> <name>-<upstream version>-<releasenumber><disttag><non sort relevant suffixes, e.g. repoid>
> e.g. simply
> foo-1.2.3-4.<disttag>.johnsmith
> 
> 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

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:53:03PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Just to be 100% clear I am soon posting my revised package naming
> counter-proposal for fedora.redhat.com.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 11:22:27PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Dist Tag for Normal Packages:
>      %{X}.%{disttag}
> Where %{X} is the vepoch and %{disttag} is a distribution tag from this 
> table:
> 
> 0.7.3 Red Hat Linux 7.3
> 0.8   Red Hat Linux 8
> 0.9   Red Hat Linux 9
> 1     Fedora Core 1
> 1.93  Fedora Core 1.93 beta
> 1.94  Fedora Core 1.94 beta
> 2     Fedora Core 2 beta

So this is scheme A, with the variation of dropping the distid.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- 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/20031031/352389ba/attachment.sig>