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

rpm versioning scheme (was: Kind request: Set release version to "10")



On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:32:40PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> How is your current versioning scheme defined?

Extracting kernel-modules, beta/cvs and other non-trivial examples the
versioning scheme I suggest to use (note not only for myself, and not
only for RH/FC) is:

<name>-<upstream_version>-<buildnumber>_<disttag>_<optional repo id>

Where

o _ is a seperator, that could be "_", "." or under certain
  circumstances even ""

o disttag is a combination of a distid and a distversion, e.g.
  rh9, rhel3, fdr1, lsb1.3, mdk8, suse9
  should be rpm-sortable within a family, e.g. rhl/fdr should be
  sortable, rhel also, but possible rhl/fdr and rhel should not
  compare, etc.

o repoid is an identity marker like "at", "fr", "dag", "fdr"
  They are at the least significant position to not have rpm sort on them.
  repoid is optional and should not be used by vendors or first tier
  packaging repos like FC. disttag 

> > You trimmed (and maybe didn't read) the following from my previous
> > reply: "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."
> 
> I refused to quote it.

No need to comment on that, I guess ...

> Does Fedora Legacy cover "old releases of Fedora Core" (quote from
> fedora.redhat.com) or also old release from Red Hat Linux or also
> pre-Fedora 3rd party repositories?
-- 
Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de

Attachment: pgp00050.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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