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

Re: Kind request: Set release version to "10"

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:50:52 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 07:19:08PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > A few observations: In your repository I don't see a consistent
> > platform specific release tag scheme.
> check the dates and the discussion on fedora.us in March/April (yes, I
> was once a fedora member).

Been there before I joined the fedora-devel fedora us list. Going
through list archives is a time-consuming process. I prefer summaries
of ready-to-use concepts which can be commented on as a whole.
Continueing Fedora Core with Red Hat Linux specific release numbers
does not sound reasonable. It is like an implicit epoch.

You don't answer why some of your packages have no distribution specific
release tag at all and why other packages override versions found in Red
Hat Linux.

> The fact is that there still is no versioning scheme one can rely
> upon. The scheme we discussed with fedora.us in March/April is now
> broken.

What had been the plans for RHL 9 => RHL 10? I don't remember, maybe
rh90 => rh100 or anything like that? And why is the "rh" in front of
the version? And why is it "rh90.93" instead of "9.0.93.rh"? It's too
late to change a broken system and additionally make it play nicely
with future changes. But Fedora Core's start at "1" is the chance for
a change. I'm not that interested in learning about old broken
versions of RPM and trying to make them fit into a general concept

- -- 
Michael, who doesn't reply to top posts and complete quotes anymore.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


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