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

Re: Package Naming Guidlines

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 13:03, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Toshio wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 11:32, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Things could break with strange enough upstream alphabetic release tags:
> > Betas of 1.0 taking the form 1.0[a-z] will break on upgrade from 1.0s =>
> > final (foo-1.0-1.s.rh9 => foobar-1.0-1.rh9)  Don't knwo if that's enough
> > of a reason, though.
> These kind of cases are already addressed in the naming proposals 
> (unless recent ones have changed).  Non numeric items in the Version tag 
> should be avoided, and are generally moved into the Release: tag.
Oops.  My bad.  In my hypothetical the release should go from 1.s.rh9 to
2.rh9.  So I don't know what Warren's reason for the proposed change is.


  t  o  s  h  i  o  +  t  i  k  i  -  l  o  u  n  g  e  .  c  o  m
                                                          GA->ME 1999

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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