(fix typos) Re: Packaging:NamingGuidelines Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

[Sérgio Basto]

Switching to packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org 

On Ter, 2015-11-24 at 01:47 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Seg, 2015-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I'd like improve for cases that upstream doesn't make a release and
> the package stays forever in a pre-release, this happens a lot with
> old projects that are half dead upstream, instead of have just one
> counter, we have two counters, one when upstream change the source
> other when we rebuild the package, it will be better readable, to
> understand if the upstream had updates or not.


In this link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages 
where we read :

Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages: 

0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist}   

And I'm proposing : 

0[.%{X}].%{alphatag}[.%{Y}]%{?dist} 

is just better IMHO .


> Best regards,
> -- 
> Sérgio M. B.
> 
> 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.