[Bug 564520] Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 17 01:34:09 UTC 2010


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=564520

--- Comment #10 from Alan Dunn <amdunn at gmail.com> 2010-02-16 20:34:05 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Regarding the upstream version naming convention... I agree with you, the
> upstream naming convention is awful (e.g., "Beryllium").  This is an odd duck,
> and I'd like to hear others' comments.
> 
> I looked over the Fedora policy, here, on version numbers:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Version
> The policy focuses on the situations where non-numeric version identifiers are
> Pre-release packages (e.g., "alpha"), Post-release packages (e.g., "1.3a"),
> snapshots, and Jpackage-derived packages.  None of these situations applies. 
> In this case, we have a group that gives alphabetic names to versions, and
> you'd have to know the periodic table to know which is newer.
> 
> We *could* use a YYYYMMDD system, but that is a little awkward.
> 
> Translating the element names into their numeric atomic number (number of
> protons) isn't a bad idea at all, but I think you should use "0." as the prefix
> instead of "1.".  This means that Beryllium would become "0.4".  That way, if
> they switch to a more conventional version numbering system in the future, we
> can switch to it without using epochs.  In addition, I think you should add the
> word "beryllium" to the release name, so that people can easily figure out
> which one they have.
> 
> I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on version/release naming.    

So, to clarify, you're suggesting a release of something like "2.beryllium"?
(The other way around would affect EVR comparisons, no?)

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list