Retrograde package version

[W. Michael Petullo]

I recently followed another distribution's lead and made some assumptions
about the version numbering of a package I maintain, mt-daapd.

I released a bugfix in the form of:

mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8
mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9
mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5

I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.

Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version
of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that
the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this
"lower" version number.

What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9
version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream.

Mike

[Jon Ciesla]

>  I recently followed another distribution's lead and made some
> assumptions
>  about the version numbering of a package I maintain, mt-daapd.
>
>  I released a bugfix in the form of:
>
>  mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8
>  mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9
>  mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
>
>  I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
>
>  Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version
>  of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that
>  the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this
>  "lower" version number.
>
>  What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9
>  version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream. 
Epoch bump?

>  Mike
>
>  --
>  Fedora-packaging mailing list
>  Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>  

-- 
novus ordo absurdum

[W. Michael Petullo]

> > I recently followed another distribution's lead and made some
> assumptions
> > about the version numbering of a package I maintain, mt-daapd.
> >
> > I released a bugfix in the form of:
> >
> > mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8
> > mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9
> > mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
> >
> > I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
> >
> > Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version
> > of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that
> > the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this
> > "lower" version number.
> >
> > What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9
> > version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream. 
 
>  Epoch bump? 
As far as I know, the epoch does not override the version for the
update path.

Mike

[Toshio Kuratomi]

W. Michael Petullo wrote:
>   
> > Epoch bump?
>  
>  As far as I know, the epoch does not override the version for the
>  update path.
>   
That's actually what it's for.  Epoch trumps version so that you can 
work around things like broken upstream numbering or cases like this.

-Toshio

[Paul Howarth]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:37:31 -0400
"W. Michael Petullo" <mike(a)flyn.org&gt; wrote:
>  >> I released a bugfix in the form of:
>  >>
>  >> mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8
>  >> mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9
>  >> mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
>  >>
>  >> I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
>  >>
>  >> Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next
>  >> version of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which
>  >> is lower that the versions above. I'd like to supercede the
>  >> packages above with this "lower" version number.
>  >>
>  >> What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the
>  >> 0.9 version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream.
>   
>  > Epoch bump?
>  
>  As far as I know, the epoch does not override the version for the
>  update path. 
Overriding the version is the entire raison d'être of epoch, isn't it?

Paul.

[W. Michael Petullo]

> >>> I released a bugfix in the form of:
> >>>
> >>> mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8
> >>> mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9
> >>> mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
> >>>
> >>> I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
> >>>
> >>> Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next
> >>> version of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which
> >>> is lower that the versions above. I'd like to supercede the
> >>> packages above with this "lower" version number.
> >>>
> >>> What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the
> >>> 0.9 version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream. 
 
> >> Epoch bump? 
 
> > As far as I know, the epoch does not override the version for
> the
> > update path. 
 
>  Overriding the version is the entire raison d'être of epoch,
> isn't it? 
Please excuse my ignorance. I have read up on the epoch and you are
right -- it provides the solution to my problem. Thanks!

-- 
Mike

:wq