rpm: alpha vs numeric

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 12 November 2003 01:41, Axel Thimm wrote:
> o Version your rpms, so that this bug is not triggered. Therefore a
>   sane versioning scheme not jumping back and forth from alpha to
>   numeric segments is unevitable. See also the lengthy thread about it
>   with the disttags for the RH family finally recommended as
>
>                     rh7.3 < rh8.0 < rh9 < rhfc1

Not to start this on yet another list, but I didn't seem to see a consensus 
on the use of "rhfc1" to indicate fedora core 1.  it's rather ugly, and 
causes every RH person I've talked to about it to shudder.  The other 
method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3" for rh73 "0.9" for 
rh9, and "1" for fc1.  If you _still_ want text, perhaps "0.rc73" and 
"fc1", so that we don't run into "r" being older than "f".  Using text 
IMHO is a nono and should be avoided at all costs.

- -- 
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
Mondo DevTeam           (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
 
Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/stAk4v2HLvE71NURAnj3AKCnQXqW01tNMQX7hWFpdmVCIQGD/wCeKGNr
JR5GHYY94bYgPqDTyajA6aQ=
=I4kw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----