On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 20:59, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le ven 07/11/2003 à 17:59, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Friday 07 November 2003 08:47, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression
> > that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for
> > minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security
> > related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata
> > for rpm despite the known problems.
> >
> > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm
> > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of
> > fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;)
>
> I personally agreed to it, until somebody showed me clear evidence that
> it could/would break something.
I supported it too I wasn't the only one.
Is this "me too thread" really useful ? Did anyone propose an
alternative scheme that had any chance to work ?
More importantly (IMHO, YMMV): what does that imply, if anything,
related to the naming guidelines?
There was some support for moving/keeping non-numeric upstream
post-release version parts in %{version} instead of moving them into
%{release}, what is the consensus on that now?