From rpm-list-admin@freshrpms.net  Mon Aug 19 16:31:35 2002
Return-Path: <rpm-zzzlist-admin@freshrpms.net>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6147D43C34
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:31:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:31:35 +0100 (IST)
Received: from egwn.net (auth02.nl.egwn.net [193.172.5.4]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7JFVx630235 for
    <jm-rpm@jmason.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:31:59 +0100
Received: from auth02.nl.egwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by egwn.net
    (8.11.6/8.11.6/EGWN) with ESMTP id g7JFR2J28388; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:27:02
    +0200
Received: from python (gw01.es3.egwn.net [212.9.66.13]) (authenticated) by
    egwn.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/EGWN) with ESMTP id g7JFPwJ16539 for
    <rpm-list@freshrpms.net>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:25:59 +0200
From: Matthias Saou <matthias@egwn.net>
To: rpm-zzzlist@freshrpms.net
Subject: Re: rpm versioning done right?
Message-Id: <20020819172504.56ae01a0.matthias@egwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1029769679.30562.134.camel@ulysses.hemma>
References: <1029769679.30562.134.camel@ulysses.hemma>
Organization: Electronic Group Interactive
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.1claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux)
Reply-BY: Tue, 24 Jul 2000 19:02:00 +1000
X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux power!
X-Message-Flag: Try using a real operating system : GNU/Linux power!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailscanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
Sender: rpm-zzzlist-admin@freshrpms.net
Errors-To: rpm-zzzlist-admin@freshrpms.net
X-Beenthere: rpm-zzzlist@freshrpms.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rpm-zzzlist@freshrpms.net
List-Help: <mailto:rpm-zzzlist-request@freshrpms.net?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:rpm-zzzlist@freshrpms.net>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freshrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/rpm-zzzlist>,
    <mailto:rpm-list-request@freshrpms.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Freshrpms RPM discussion list <rpm-zzzlist.freshrpms.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freshrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/rpm-zzzlist>,
    <mailto:rpm-list-request@freshrpms.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/rpm-zzzlist/>
X-Original-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:25:04 +0200
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:25:04 +0200

Once upon a time, Daniel wrote :

> What do you pleople think of the strategy to put prerelease
> (alpha/beta/rc) information in the release field? The above example
> should then have 6.1-0alpha5 as %{version}-%{release} and when the final
> version was released it would have 6.1-1.

Why not... it's just that sometimes it gets a bit more confusing in the
spec file since you have to change the "Source:" as well as "%setup" to
reflect the name changes. But it might also sometimes be even easier the
way you suggest, if the entire package contains only references to the
final version and that only the archive name has a "pr1" or "beta6" in it
for example.

Take for instance xmame : I've been packaging 0.61 pre-releases as
"0.61-fr0.x" since the entire source has only "0.61" tags everywhere, no
preversion tags whatsoever.

Still, I don't think "Epoch:" is an evil hack although it's true that it
may cause problems between distributions when used. Wanting to avoid it
when possible is a good thing indeed ;-)

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Saou                                World Trade Center
-------------                                Edificio Norte 4 Planta
System and Network Engineer                  08039 Barcelona, Spain
Electronic Group Interactive                 Phone : +34 936 00 23 23

_______________________________________________
RPM-List mailing list <RPM-List@freshrpms.net>
http://lists.freshrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

