[Bug 229591] Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591





------- Additional Comments From yaneti at declera.com  2007-08-01 12:54 EST -------
(In reply to comment #28)
> as a sidenote: for an explanation of that (weird?) versioning scheme, you can
> have a look at http://ezix.org/project/wiki/VersionNumbers

Some points on that.
- You cannot expect people to obey your desire to not package your X.. or T..
versions. Especially in bleading edge Fedora land. And this is where this
version scheme fails with rpm because X.00 > T.01 > C.02
- Fedora has guidelines on including such non-numeric information in the release
field. These guidelines are probably the reason there is not a single package
with non-numeric version in the repository.
- All the other major distributions have stripped this field when packaging lshw. 


> (In reply to comment #25)
> > (In reply to comment #23)
> > > Just one thing: the version is B.02.11, not 2.11. Please stick to the official
> > > version numbers to prevent confusion and problems with upgrades (RPM seems to
> > > think that B.02.11 < 2.04).
> > 
> > Your version numbers might make sense to you but they are way off the normal
> > package versioning practices, and certainly alien to any distribution versioning
> > scheme (which has the purpose of preventing stuff like B.02.11 < 2.04). 
> > So, since you seem to be keeping al least the numeric part of the version in
> > some common order thats what he is using.
> 
> 



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.