Distags in rpm sort order (yes, versioning again ;)
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano
nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU
Sat Nov 8 04:02:15 UTC 2003
> > No comments from RH? Should every repository and its cat come up with
> > its own scheme creating more compatibility problems in the future?
>
> Well, this thread is becoming old and boring and is like beating a
> dead horse, so I am giving up ;)
>
Previously on this thread
> > disttag can be:
> > A B C
> > Red Hat Linux 7.3 fdr0.7.3 rh7.3 rh7.3
> > Red Hat Linux 8.0 fdr0.8.0 rh8.0 rh8.0
> > Red Hat Linux 9 fdr0.9 rh9 rh9
> > Fedora Core 1 fdr1 rh9.1 1fdr
> > Fedora Core 2 test1 fdr1.95 rh9.1.95 1.95fdr
>
> While I personally think that scheme A (e.g. using fedora like
> disttags for past RH releases) would solve the problems best, it only
> makes sense to me, if that would become a standard, and not only
> something atrpms follows.
>
> Since neither RH nor any other repo really commented on this
> (constructively that is ;), I guess it means repos will go wild with
> supporting multiple RH/FC releases. I for my part will use scheme B
> (numbering FC with something higher than rh9, e.g. rh9.1, similar to
> Rex Dieter's suggestion a while back).
I'm starting to use something similar in Planet CCRMA, I was previously
using:
rh73 -> rh80 -> rh90
(so I can't really switch to rh7.3/rh8.0/rh9 at this point)
And now I'm rebuilding for FC1 with:
rh73 -> rh80 -> rh90 -> rhfc1
Seems to work fine.
-- Fernando
More information about the devel
mailing list