On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:49 PM James Cassell
<fedoraproject(a)cyberpear.com> wrote:
eln9.100.0 makes the relation to RHEL cycle obvious without looking
like a RHEL tag. Is dot allowed here? Do we need eln9_100_1?
The dots would be permissible here.
That said, can you describe what value you see in having the RHEL
cycle represented in the RPM name? (Because that's basically the only
practical effect here.) Particularly if you consider that we do not
plan to have mass-rebuilds scheduled around RHEL releases, so a
package that isn't updated for a long time after ELN starts tracking
towards RHEL 10 is going to start confusing people the same way that
having ".fc30" packages in Fedora 31 continues to do.
I'm not saying "no", I'd just like to hear a clear value justification
for carrying that number in the package name.