[Bug 490061] Review Request: awesfx - Utility programs for AWE32/Emu10k1

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490061





--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-05-28 16:09:39 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Sorry i dont understand this one; i read the guidelines and it seems to be
> > correct to version the package 0.5.1c, as it is the third bugfix release under
> > version 0.5.1
> 
> I was under the impression that characters were not allowed in releases and are
> always moved to the release field. But you are correct, the wiki does not say
> so explicitly. If you like you can stick with 0.5.1c-1%{?dist}, but I'd prefer
> 0.5.1-1%{?dist}.c

Guido's numbering is correct, see

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_package

"Properly ordered simple versions. These are usually due to quick bugfix
releases, such as openssl-0.9.6b or gkrellm-2.1.7a. As new versions come out,
the non-numeric tag is properly incremented (e.g. openssl-0.9.6c) or the
numeric version is increased and the non-numeric tag is dropped
(openssl-0.9.7). In this case, the non-numeric characters are permitted in the
Version: field. "

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.