Version name for prerelease when upstream used date based versions

[Bruno Wolff III]

I am looking a the suggested version name for a prerelease when upstream
uses dates for their versions.

I am close to having a package (colossus) ready, but one sticking point is
that upstream is probably a week or two away from putting up a new public
build (essentially a snapshot they want to recommend to general users). The
code has changed a lot since their last public release, so that a snapshot
now is really much more of a prerelease package than a post release. Some
things have changed from the last public build to make it more suitable
for packaging in Fedora, so packaging that version isn't very practical.

Upstream is considering changing to more normal version names, but probably
won't make such a change before the next public build.

I could hold off on putting the package into rawhide until after they
make the next public build making the issue moot. (I wasn't going to put
the package into a released version of Fedora until then in any case.)
I could also use a current date for the version of the package, but that
won't correspond to any actual release made by the upstream. I could also
use the date of the last public build even though the code has diverged
since then. (I am not sure if the interface has changed much since then
since for my own use I have been running current svn check outs for over
a year and don't use the public build versions.)

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 07/09/2009 11:34 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  I am looking a the suggested version name for a prerelease when
> upstream
>  uses dates for their versions.
>     
Doesn't 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_pack... 
, "example (pre-release svn checkout)" help ?



>  I am close to having a package (colossus) ready, but one sticking
> point is
>  that upstream is probably a week or two away from putting up a new public
>  build (essentially a snapshot they want to recommend to general users). The
>  code has changed a lot since their last public release, so that a snapshot
>  now is really much more of a prerelease package than a post release. Some
>  things have changed from the last public build to make it more suitable
>  for packaging in Fedora, so packaging that version isn't very practical.
>
>  Upstream is considering changing to more normal version names, but probably
>  won't make such a change before the next public build.
>
>  I could hold off on putting the package into rawhide until after they
>  make the next public build making the issue moot. (I wasn't going to put
>  the package into a released version of Fedora until then in any case.)
>  I could also use a current date for the version of the package, but that
>  won't correspond to any actual release made by the upstream. I could also
>  use the date of the last public build even though the code has diverged
>  since then. (I am not sure if the interface has changed much since then
>  since for my own use I have been running current svn check outs for over
>  a year and don't use the public build versions.)
>
>  --
>  Fedora-packaging mailing list
>  Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>     

-- 
     Manuel Wolfshant       linux registered user #131416
        IT manager    NoBug Consulting SRL
  A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
> >A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> >>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 23:41:43 +0300,
  Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro&gt; wrote:
>  On 07/09/2009 11:34 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > I am looking a the suggested version name for a prerelease when upstream
> > uses dates for their versions.
> >   
>  Doesn't  
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_pack... 
>  , "example (pre-release svn checkout)" help ? 
If you know what the name of the version will be when it's released. However
I don't know what the next release date, and hence version name, will be.
So I can't do the prelease the way it is suggested there.

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  I am looking a the suggested version name for a prerelease when
> upstream
>  uses dates for their versions.
>
>  I am close to having a package (colossus) ready, but one sticking point is
>  that upstream is probably a week or two away from putting up a new public
>  build (essentially a snapshot they want to recommend to general users). The
>  code has changed a lot since their last public release, so that a snapshot
>  now is really much more of a prerelease package than a post release. Some
>  things have changed from the last public build to make it more suitable
>  for packaging in Fedora, so packaging that version isn't very practical.
>
>  Upstream is considering changing to more normal version names, but probably
>  won't make such a change before the next public build.
>
>  I could hold off on putting the package into rawhide until after they
>  make the next public build making the issue moot. (I wasn't going to put
>  the package into a released version of Fedora until then in any case.)
>  I could also use a current date for the version of the package, but that
>  won't correspond to any actual release made by the upstream. I could also
>  use the date of the last public build even though the code has diverged
>  since then. (I am not sure if the interface has changed much since then
>  since for my own use I have been running current svn check outs for over
>  a year and don't use the public build versions.)
>  
I would use
Version: 0
Release: 0.1.20090709%{?dist}

and if there's an update next week
Version: 0
Release: 0.2.20090716%{?dist}

or something close.

Orcan

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:42:33 -0400,
  Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  I would use
>  Version: 0
>  Release: 0.1.20090709%{?dist} 
Calling it version 0 until upstream actually started using version numbers
is one possibility I considered. I'd probably want to add in the svn
rev number in addition to the date in the release name.

[Fernando Nasser]

+1 for Version: 0

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 16:42:33 -0400,
>    Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>    
> > I would use
> > Version: 0
> > Release: 0.1.20090709%{?dist}
> >     
>
>  Calling it version 0 until upstream actually started using version numbers
>  is one possibility I considered. I'd probably want to add in the svn
>  rev number in addition to the date in the release name.
>
>  --
>  Fedora-packaging mailing list
>  Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>
>