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

Re: On disttags (was: Choosing rpm-release for fc1 and fdr add-on rpms)



On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:02:43PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:31:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > So the general stance is to have a suffux to the release tag
> > containing an rpm-sortable disttag and an optional repotag, like
> > 
> > foo-1.2.3-4.rh9.ralf.src.rpm
> 
> Which is a bad suggestion, because the package %release version should
> begin at 0, so any other version of the package which might appear in
> Fedora Core would serve as an upgrade of this add-on.

for one it is a simple suggestion, I didn't want to have cvs pre-alpha
builds with kernel modules discussed, but give the general idea.

Of course, just as version cut-off moved to the disttags, you can have
hierarchical buildtags, like <vendor>_<3rd party> build structures,
leading to things like foo-1.2.3-4_5.rh9.ralf.src.rpm or
foo-1.2.3-0_5.rh9.ralf.src.rpm, if the vendor does not yet offer foo
in version 1.2.3.

For packages not existing in FC and where it looks like it will take
some time to get them in (or perhaps will by definition not ever make
it), I suggest to not use hierarchical tags, as it is easier to ask
the "man-inside" to use a higher build.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgp00046.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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