[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Kernel module packages (was - Re: Pre-Review: Asterisk)
- From: Ville Skyttä <ville skytta iki fi>
- To: fedora-extras-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: Kernel module packages (was - Re: Pre-Review: Asterisk)
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:36:22 +0300
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 13:11 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 19:38 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> > Release: 1.0_7174.1
> > or
> > Release: 1.1.0_7174
>
> Seems reasonable. Your bugzilla reasoning makes sense.
>
> Does this syntax look good to people?
>
> %define modulever 1.0_7174
>
> Release: 1.%{modulever}
This is better than %{modulever}.1 in the sense that if %{modulever}
changes in a non-symmetrical or otherwise unexpected way, rpm version
comparison can be tuned by bumping the "1" where needed. In fedora.us
terms, it's essentially the same as the "vepoch".
> Provides: %{name}-version = %{modulever}
Not sure what value "-version" has there. What's wrong with just using
the usual "Provides: %{name} = %{modulever}"?
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]