fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1)

[Ville Skyttä]

On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 20:59, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le ven 07/11/2003 à 17:59, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > On Friday 07 November 2003 08:47, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression
> > > that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for
> > > minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security
> > > related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata
> > > for rpm despite the known problems.
> > >
> > > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm
> > > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of
> > > fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;)
> > 
> > I personally agreed to it, until somebody showed me clear evidence that 
> > it could/would break something.
> 
> I supported it too I wasn't the only one.
> Is this "me too thread" really useful ? Did anyone propose an
> alternative scheme that had any chance to work ?

More importantly (IMHO, YMMV): what does that imply, if anything,
related to the naming guidelines?

There was some support for moving/keeping non-numeric upstream
post-release version parts in %{version} instead of moving them into
%{release}, what is the consensus on that now?