Re: (fix typos) Re: Packaging:NamingGuidelines Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages
Switching to packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Ter, 2015-11-24 at 01:47 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Seg, 2015-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 00:46, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sex, 2015-11-20 at 15:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Čt, 2015-11-19 at 20:59 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Qua, 2015-11-18 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > "SB" == Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com writes:
SB> When we fix the .spec and don't change the source, we bump rightmost SB> version, when we change the source, we bump the left version, so we SB> can distinguish when we update the source and when we updated the SB> .spec, this contrast for me is important.
For me, the simple rule that a Release: tag less than 1 implies prerelease software, while a Release: tag of 1 or greater implies a post-release package, is important. So far the proponents of this change haven't shown what things would actually look like after this change, so it's hard for me to come up with a reason to change my opinion.
prerelease numbering can't begin with 0 and increased to 0.1 because :
next version of foo-0.b would be foo-0.1.b and "b">1
Nope, 1>"b" in rpm version compare.
Even so, we shouldn't depend on upstream preserving sorting order in their pre-release suffixes. Numerical sorting is always monotonous.
If so, we could begging numeration with 0 for pre-release:
foo-0.c -> foo-0.c.1 -> foo-0.1.b -> foo-0.1.b.1 -> foo-0.2.a -> foo- 0.2.a.1
I don't understand why you want to introduce another level of numbering. What's wrong with the current guideline?
I'd like improve for cases that upstream doesn't make a release and the package stays forever in a pre-release, this happens a lot with old projects that are half dead upstream, instead of have just one counter, we have two counters, one when upstream change the source other when we rebuild the package, it will be better readable, to understand if the upstream had updates or not.
In this link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_package... where we read :
Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist}
And I'm proposing :
0[.%{X}].%{alphatag}[.%{Y}]%{?dist}
is just better IMHO .
Best regards,
Sérgio M. B.
On Tuesday, 24 November 2015 at 14:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Switching to packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
[...]
In this link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_package... where we read :
Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist}
And I'm proposing :
0[.%{X}].%{alphatag}[.%{Y}]%{?dist}
is just better IMHO .
Personally, I think it's too complicated due to the optional nature of X and Y parts and it's just as easy to get wrong if subsequent alphatag breaks release monontonicity and the package maintainer doesn't notice it.
With X being currently mandatory, at least you know you must always increase it every time you update the package, so monotonicity is preserved.
Regards, Dominik
Hi,
On Seg, 2015-11-30 at 12:15 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 November 2015 at 14:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Switching to packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
[...]
In this link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelin es#Pre-Release_packages ; where we read :
Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist}
And I'm proposing :
0[.%{X}].%{alphatag}[.%{Y}]%{?dist}
is just better IMHO .
Personally, I think it's too complicated due to the optional nature of X and Y parts and it's just as easy to get wrong if subsequent alphatag breaks release monontonicity and the package maintainer doesn't notice it.
With X being currently mandatory, at least you know you must always increase it every time you update the package, so monotonicity is preserved.
Other argument that I forgot to mention is: this is an extension of first version so nobody needs change his package naming and is an extension in two ways : 1 - Possibility of begin with 0 , before was need be: 0.%{X} 2 - Possibility of write in right .
The current: 0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist} Extension 1: 0[.%{X}].%{alphatag}%{?dist} Extension 2: 0[.%{X}].%{alphatag}[.%{Y}]%{?dist}
I'd like to have permission to use in some of "my" packages.
Regards, Dominik
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Sérgio Basto