[Bug 891011] Review Request: mingw-angleproject - Almost Native Graphics Layer Engine

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891011

--- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> As I asked in IRC, I'm not sure you want versions to be of the type
> 0-2.svnX.timestamp.dist
> 
> If you later update to svnX+1 won't you want to drop back to release -1?
> With the current scheme 0-1.svnX+1.timestamp.dist will be seen as a lower
> version number. SVN revision and/or timestamp would need to be before the -1
> and -2 in order for revision comparison to sort out properly. Is the current
> behavior your intention?

Yes the versioning scheme is intended. Upstream hasn't done any official
releases yet so it is completely uncertain what version number will be used
first (it might be 1.0, but in might also be 0.0.1). Therefore the version tag
will remain at 0 for the time being.

The general rule of thumb for using unreleased versions is by prefixing the
release tag with '0.'. Whether this '0.' prefix is used in this package or not
doesn't really matter now as the version number is 0. This should be an enough
indication that a snapshot is used instead of an official release. However, if
it would make you feel better then I can add the '0.' prefix to the release
tag.

The svn revision and timestamp which are mentioned in the release tag are only
used as additional information to end users. The RPM version check works from
left to right when it has to determine which package is more recent. Take for
example:

$ rpmdev-vercmp 
  Epoch1: 
Version1: 0
Release1: 2.svn123.20130125.fc19
  Epoch2: 
Version2: 0
Release2: 3.svn124.20130125.fc19
0-2.svn123.20130125.fc19 < 0-3.svn124.20130125.fc19

$ rpmdev-vercmp 
  Epoch1: 
Version1: 0
Release1: 2.svn123.20130125.fc19
  Epoch2: 
Version2: 0
Release2: 3.svn122.20130124.fc19
0-2.svn123.20130125.fc19 < 0-3.svn122.20130124.fc19

As you can see this also gives us the flexibility to downgrade to an older SVN
revision if necessary (without having to use the epoch). When the SVN revision
is used as first component then downgrading won't be possible:

$ rpmdev-vercmp 
  Epoch1: 
Version1: 0
Release1: svn123.20130125.1.fc19
  Epoch2: 
Version2: 0
Release2: svn122.20130124.2.fc19
0-svn123.20130125.1.fc19 > 0-svn122.20130124.2.fc19

I'll publish an updated package which fixes the permission and spaces/tabs
rpmlint warnings

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kFAAAqlkV5&a=cc_unsubscribe