On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 02:23:48PM -0500, Elliot Lee wrote:
> You're definitely right that there will always be some special cases, and
> we'll have to deal them on a one-by-one basis. In that particular special
> case, I'd prefer to use "1.0beta1" as the version.
But of course that sorts after "1.0", meaning that an epoch is required for
the final release.
> However, the existence of this special case above doesn't
prove that epoch
> is bad or the wrong way to handle things. It's important to keep the users
> in mind - their package searching and updating lives would be made a lot
> easier if the Version: is as close to upstream whenever possible.
But epochs make it even more confusing for "the users", since they're a)
arbitrary and b) mostly invisible.
That's a good point. At the same time, if epoch is used correctly, it
will be used only to help rpm comparisons along, and in that case being
invisible is a benefit.
It's sounding like most people are comfortable with a policy of "Use
upstream version in Version:, unless rpm comparisons will get messed up,
in which case you should munge the Release: using the guidelines given".