devel April 2012

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

254 participants
292 discussions

libnet update to 1.1.6 coming to rawhide, soname bump
by Jon Ciesla 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

This affects the following: libnids suricata syslog-ng Whose owners are CCd and which I'll handle rebuilding unless the owners would rather. Thanks, -J -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie

2 1

Git post-release version-release
by Alec Leamas 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

My problem is about possible ways to form the version-release fields for a git post-release.. My example involves a version like 1.1.0 and a git release like 20120329git1234567 Reading [1], all examples of post-release updates are on the form foo-1.1.0-1.20120328git1234567.fc16. Obviously, this is one way to do it. However, when I try to read the link carefully, I also see a possibility to use a version-release like foo-1.1.1.20120328git1234567-1.fc16. My reasoning based on the link: - Version tags are either properly ordered or not. - git tags like this are properly ordered (thanks to the date prefix). - For properly ordered tags, the text explicitly says the tag can go into the version field. However, there are no such examples. Of course, another question is why. In short, I see some minor advantages w r t robustness and consistency using this form. But for now, this is not really the focus of this question. So, my question: Reading [1], is a version-release like foo-1.1.0.20120329git1234567-1.fc15 OK? [1]:http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_pa…

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel April 2012