Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:15:12AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:59:52AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:53:58AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>>> In my personal descending order of preference I would do one of
these:
>>>>> Version: 0
>>>>> Release: 1.rNNN
>>>> Thanks ..
>>>>
>>>> For the moment I've used:
>>>>
>>>> Version: 0.1
>>>> Release: 0.1.r11
>>> What issue are you trying to solve by this choice?
>>>
>>> You are not solving anything.
>> I don't understand what you mean.
> Let me turn my question around: Why can't you directly use the upstream
> version?
I'm just trying to work out the best way to do this. Can you not ask
cryptic rhetorical questions
These aren't rhetorical question.
My point are:
* There is nothing technically wrong with using this upstream's versioning.
* Their versioning fits well in to rpm's versioning.
=> There is no reason to introduce a diverge versioning for your packages.
and just say why the version and release
scheme above, derived from Toshio's one, isn't right.
It isn't
technically wrong, I simply consider his proposal to be
foolish, silly and stupid.
Ralf