[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 192912] Review Request: paps

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:42:47 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 01:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:54:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> > > Forgot to mention the case I consider to be the most broken version:
> > > * N.M%{?dist}
> > > with unclear meaning of M
> > > 
> > > E.g. these packages have just been released for FE6:
> > > dejavu-fonts-2.7.0-0.15.fc6
> > 
> > The old pre-release case, where the most-significant part of release is
> > made 0 and hence makes it possible to ship a final 2.7.0-1.fc6 in the
> > future without bumping Epoch.
>
> IMO, an over-engineered miss-feature in the guidelines.
> 
> It prevents 3rd party packagers to supply packages.

That is certainly not true.

> Otherwise, they could resort to use: 
> 2.7.0-0%{?dist}.M

Why can't they just use the same versioning scheme?

Why and when would they supply a package, which is in Core or Extras
already, with an incompatible version than what either is in Core and
Extras or will be in Core or Extras later?

It is extremely inconvienient and tiresome for anyone, who works on
packaging guidelines, to consider packaging scenarios for packagers who
don't adhere to the same guidelines.

> > > xscreensaver-5.00-7.1.fc6
> > 
> > This is bad. 7.1.fc6 is newer than 7.fc7. In general, '1' > 'f'.
> 
> > > Q: Are N and M supposed to be <int>?
> > 
> > Yes. _But_ it's only N{?dist} and 0.N{?dist} for pre-releases.
> C.f. above. IMO, a defect of the guidelines and to be reconsider.
> 
> Let's keep things simple, instead.

Things would be simplified a lot if we didn't limit our own flexibilities
in choosing package versions and if 3rd party packagers would not create
conflicting packages.