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

[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=564520

--- Comment #12 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-02-17 22:34:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)

The basic question is how to convert the version name "Beryllium 2" into
something reasonable.  Sorry to have such a long conversation about
version/release id's, but upstream's version naming convention is hideous and
it's not directly covered by the Fedora guidelines.  Anyway, I looked at this
for some guidance:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Version

Since Beryllium has atomic number 4, this is subrelease 2 of the Beryllium
version, and we should prefix with "0." (see comment #5 and comment #6), then I
think we should have:
 Version: 0.4.2

We could have a perfectly reasonable 'release' value like this, since 0.4.2
would uniquely map to Beryllium 2:
 Release: 1%{?dist}
Having a simple 'release' value has its own virtues, and that'd be quite
reasonable.

However, what I was thinking was that many people might not understand that
version "0.4.2" was the same thing as "Beryllium 2" (unless they look up our
translation gimmick).   The "Release" value is where nonnumeric version id's
hide, so I was thinking that we might use the Release field to provide that
info to users.  E.G., perhaps something like this for Beryllium 2:
 Release: 1.beryllium.2%{?dist}

Then the initial release number would be incremented for each new package
release of Beryllium 2.

Does that sound reasonable?  Comments, anyone?

-- 
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.