Le vendredi 16 juin 2006 à 11:16 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius
<rc040203(a)freenet.de> writes:
RC> I'd recommend to start with V: 2.7.0 and R: 1%{?dist} and to
RC> increment the Release tag, when a newer pre release or a final
RC> tarball is released and exchanged inside of the spec.
If 2.7.0 doesn't actually exist yet, though, it's a bit disingenuous
to release a package that indicates that it is 2.7.0. I recall that
this has caused problems with various upstream developers in the past.
Unfortunately for you, that's both the common practice and what the
guidelines advocate
In the case of dejavu, a snapshot is being packaged and the naming
guidelines are quite clear on what the package should be named in that
case.
The guidelines say a pre-release should be numbered
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
with %{alphatag} the string that came from the version
In this particular case I didn't bother with %{alphatag} because it has
little or no use for FE users - the features tested do not depend on
which particular pre-release snapshot is used.
Unfortunately fixing it now would require that the version go
backwards (or something horrible like an epoch bump).
Nope.
If you really want an alphatag I can add one and it will work without
epochs or other horrible things, just because X will be incremented.
I question the value of this change though.
Also if someone could define the canonical alphatag for svn I would be
grateful. (it's not just a date it's also a number so svn alphatag is a
composition of svn date and number but in what order I can only guess)
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot