On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 02:58:10AM -0500, David D. Eisenstein wrote:
Have a quick question for you, Tom. Is there a methodolgy in place
already for how Core and/or Extras packages are to be versioned in the
"Release:" part of the packages' .spec files? I am thinking that if
there is such, then we in Legacy will need to follow that and revise our
package numbering guidelines
to follow it from now on. If no such methodology is used or mandated,
then does numbering of the "Release:" tag needs to be codified among all
I look forward to your answer, Tom. Thanks! -David
ps: How may I participate in the Packaging group?
I'll try to answer on the questions raised to Tom: The (now common to
both core and extras) Fedora Packaging Guidelines
don't yet explicitely mention the usage of (the optional) disttags
but they are in common use throughout extras and will hopefully make
their way to core soon.
But note that the disttags used here for rhlX would generate broken
upgrade paths ("rhl" > "fc"). These are very early suggestions and
since extras started with FC3 it never became an actual issue, but if
FL is seeking for following the packaging guidelines including
disttags taking this implementation would be wrong.
If there is interest in FL to introduce and use disttags before RH7.,3
and RH9 are EOL'd, RHL7.3 and RH9 would need to get disttags < fcX.
Examples stated in the past were "RHL7.3" or "fc0.7.3" (upper case is
less than lower case and RHL would be considered like subversions of
FC0). I would vote for the first version (even though it looks like
fortran/shouting) as fc0.7.3 will probably confuse end users.
You can get involved with the packaging group (if you mean the newly
created packaging committee) by subscribing to fedora-packaging and
visiting the IRC meetings on Thursdays 16:00 UTC. Jesse Keating is
also on board so there.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net