[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user

[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=581220

Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|rdieter at math.unl.edu        |kalev at smartlink.ee

--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> 2010-07-02 12:08:49 EDT ---
Rex asked me to wrap up the review for him.

(In reply to comment #6)
> naming: good, though I'm curious why upstream tacks on _1 in the tarball name.
> ?

I think I have an answer to that question. I pulled up qtsingleapplication's
changelog from
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=qtsingleapplication&project=home%3Akoprok
and there was this changeset:

 Name: qtsingleapplication
-Version: 2.6
+Version: 2.6_1
 Release: 1
 Url:
http://qt.nokia.com/products/appdev/add-on-products/catalog/4/Utilities/qtsingleapplication/
 Group: Development/Libraries/C and C++
@@ -97,5 +97,7 @@
 %{_datadir}/qt4/mkspecs/features/%{name}.prf

 %changelog
+* Wed Apr 14 2010 Todor Prokopov <koprok at nand.bg>
+- Update to 2.6_1.
 * Thu Dec  3 2009 Todor Prokopov <koprok at nand.bg>
 - Initial package.


So it appears that 2.6_1 tarball is newer than 2.6.

I wonder if upstream is going to be consistent with using _ in versions; we
should be careful to avoid introducing Epoch in case they want to release, say,
2.6.1 next.
rpmdev-vercmp says that 2.6_1 is newer than 2.6.1.

-- 
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.