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

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



On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:51:07PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

What I wanted to say is that the versioning scheme evolved, partly on
its own, partly in discussion within (the old) fedora. So when you
find inconsistency in the repo you are seeing at different layers of
history.
(I am hesitating to rebuild packages simply for re-versioning them to
avoid bandwidth consumption at end users, especially while the
versioning scheme was/is still at flux).

> Continueing Fedora Core with Red Hat Linux specific release numbers
> does not sound reasonable. It is like an implicit epoch.

OTOH you are right, but if the packages from the Fedora Project are to
be related to Red Hat Linux ones (e.g. you want them to be rpm-newer),
you need to come up with a compatible scheme.

Did you check Warren's proposal on doing the reverse? E.g. instead of
continuing RHL versioning into Fedora, one can back-continue Fedora
guidelines to the past, e.g. treat RHL8.0 as Fedora Core 0.8.0.

> > 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?

On fedora.us? I think the final consent was to "wait 'til it comes,
it's always different than you planned". It turns out to be more than
right. But that has to be fixed now, otherwise we will be having the
same problems with "Fedora New Core XP2004" ... ;)

> 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 nevertheless.

That's why I changed the Subject on the main thread to contain "Fedora
Legacy". If one doesn't care about past releases, you don't see the
problem.
-- 
Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de

Attachment: pgp00042.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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