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

[Fedora-packaging] Re: Using of date in snapshot versions



On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:43:02PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 13:58 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > foo-1.0-0.2.20061005cvs
> > bar-1.0-0.2.512svn
> > baz-1.0-0.3.123bzr
> > spam-1.0-0.3.171hg
> > ham-1.0-0.4.20070121git 

> %{alphatag} contains either the revision integer or the date of the
> checkout, followed by the revision type id:

The convention is reversed, e.g. people say cvs20061005 and
svn512. This doesn't change any ordering logig, is easier to read (the
suffixing style merges the vcs id with the actual build ids, prefixing
brings a eye-natural separator), and starting with a non-integer saves
the day from funny ordering bug like the following:

foo-1.0-0.2.20061005cvs

A trivial rebuild (like a braindead EPEL mass rebuild with a mass .1
forking):

foo-1.0-0.2.1.20061005cvs < foo-1.0-0.2.20061005cvs

So instead of introducing major.%{alphatag}.minor braindamage to deal
with the latter, let's make it even mandatory to start %{alphatag}
with an `alpha' and you're set. And we're also following common
conventions in naming snapshots and cvs checkouts.

BTW this is the reason why disttags also have to always start with a
letter. At the beginning of Fedora Core there were disttags examined
like "0.7.3", "0.8.0", "0.9", "1", "2", but they would fail in the
same way as the example above, so they would have to get "fc"
prepended, and having RHL9 carrying a disttag of "fc0.9" looked a bit
awkward, so it never made it.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpwiuE6xfl3w.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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