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

RE: ftp.rpm.org: rpm-3.0.5 packages need updated?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Porter [mailto:shiva@well.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 11:29 AM
> To: rpm-list@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: ftp.rpm.org: rpm-3.0.5 packages need updated?
> 
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:18:28 -0400, Jim Knoble wrote:
> 
> >How about rpm-3.0.5.1?  rpm-3.1.2?  Three or four elements in the
> >version number ought to be plenty; the problem is that you and Erik
> >both seem loath to change any number except the first or the third.
> >3.0.3 and 3.0.5 are different enough in their behavior that 
> they should
> >have been 3.0.3 and 3.1.1.  If you're not going to use the second
> >element in the version, why not just get rid of it?
> 
> This has always been my understanding of how to use the 3-component
> version number. (Is it codified somewhere?) First number represents
> incompatible features, 2nd changes for compatible features, 
> and 3rd for
> bug fixes.

If you really find this interesting, go read the Software Release Practice
HOWTO, by ESR.  It's at
http://www.LinuxDoc.org/HOWTO/Software-Release-Practice-HOWTO.html or any of
a whole bunch of mirrors.

I just wrote a nice rant about RedHat not using the "released" RPM, but it's
a rant, so I won't post it.  Just remember that RedHat does NOT control RPM,
RPM is Free software.
	Greg





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