Packaging:NamingGuidelines Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto <sergio at serjux.com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we bump
> > > > rightmost
> > > > SB> version, when we change the source, we bump the left version,
> > > > so
> > > > we
> > > > SB> can distinguish when we update the source and when we updated
> > > > the
> > > > SB> .spec, this contrast for me is important.
> > > > 
> > > > For me, the simple rule that a Release: tag less than 1 implies
> > > > prerelease software, while a Release: tag of 1 or greater implies
> > > > a
> > > > post-release package, is important.  So far the proponents of
> > > > this
> > > > change haven't shown what things would actually look like after
> > > > this
> > > > change, so it's hard for me to come up with a reason to change my
> > > > opinion.
> > > 
> > > prerelease numbering can't begin with 0 and increased to 0.1
> > > because :
> > > 
> > > next version of foo-0.b would be foo-0.1.b and "b">1 
> > 
> > Nope, 1>"b" in rpm version compare.

Even so, we shouldn't depend on upstream preserving sorting order in
their pre-release suffixes. Numerical sorting is always monotonous.

> If so, we could begging numeration with 0 for pre-release: 
> 
> foo-0.c -> foo-0.c.1 -> foo-0.1.b -> foo-0.1.b.1 -> foo-0.2.a -> foo-
> 0.2.a.1 

I don't understand why you want to introduce another level of numbering.
What's wrong with the current guideline?

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"