[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 192912] Review Request: paps

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 10:02 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 16:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 08:55 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 15:39 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The guidelines also mention that use of %{?dist} is optional and not
> > > > > necessary in _any_ package.
> > > > One of the unclearnesses I don't find helpful.
> > > > 
> > > > At the moment, we have various styles of release tags, which all are
> > > > incompatible and without any guarantee of a clear upgrade path ...
> > > 
> > > In Core? Yes.
> > 
> > Some random examples:
> > ..
> > ant-antlr-1.6.5-1jpp_9fc.i386.rpm
> > ..
> > dmraid-devel-1.0.0.rc11-FC6.i386.rpm
> 
> Time to file bugs. ;)
> 
> > >  In Extras? No.
> > Yes. There exist packagers who (In FE devel)
> > * don't use %{?dist} at all
> > * some use N%{?dist} and increment N with each iteration.
> 
> These are correct...
> 
> > * some use N%{?dist}.M and increment M with each build-iteration 
Example from FE6's package release mail having been sent a couple of
minutes ago:
poker-engine-1.0.15-3.fc6.1


> ...and these are not. More bugs to file!

Forgot to mention the case I consider to be the most broken version:
* N.M%{?dist}
with unclear meaning of M

E.g. these packages have just been released for FE6:
dejavu-fonts-2.7.0-0.15.fc6
xscreensaver-5.00-7.1.fc6

Q: Are N and M supposed to be <int>?

Ralf