[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package Naming Guidlines



On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 11:32, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Toshio wrote:
> 
> > Dist Tag for Normal Packages:
> > 	0.fdr.%{X}.%{disttag}
> > Where %{X} is the vepoch and %{disttag} is a distribution tag from the
> > following table:
> > rh73 Red Hat Linux 7.3  [*]
> > rh80 Red Hat Linux 8    [*]
> > rh90 Red Hat Linux 9    [*]
> ...
> > [*] These %{disttags} will be changed when fedora.us is merged into
> >     Fedora Extras.  The new numbering scheme is 0.7.3, 0.8, and 0.9
> >     respectively.
> 
> Why bother changing these dist tags at this late date, especially 
> considering that they are already or will be (real soon now) EOL.

Warren will have to speak to that as I'm just telling what's in his
Fedora Extras Proposal.  I thought that it had something to do with
upgrading between distribution releases (ie rh9's 'rh9' disttag to
fedora core's '1') but that's not broken currently.  It does make things
more uniform (all numeric disttag rather than RHL having alphanumeric
and Fedora having only numbers.)

Things could break with strange enough upstream alphabetic release tags:
Betas of 1.0 taking the form 1.0[a-z] will break on upgrade from 1.0s =>
final (foo-1.0-1.s.rh9 => foobar-1.0-1.rh9)  Don't knwo if that's enough
of a reason, though.

-Toshio
-- 
_______S________U________B________L________I________M________E_______
  t  o  s  h  i  o  +  t  i  k  i  -  l  o  u  n  g  e  .  c  o  m
                                                          GA->ME 1999

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]