Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
RPM 4.10 releasedRPM 4.10 releasedPosted May 25, 2012 9:20 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)In reply to: RPM 4.10 released by nim-nim Parent article: RPM 4.10 released
>That was mostly to limit the wreakage done by debianists when creating rpms, btw, ~ is absolutely not necessary for package version ordering, as long as you are careful in your numbering.
Since when did upstream ever ask distributions about how they should be numbering their releases?
(Log in to post comments)
RPM 4.10 released Posted May 25, 2012 11:09 UTC (Fri) by misc (subscriber, #73730) [Link]
It seems to me rather logical to ask distribution how to best integrate with them since that's their job. That's the whole point of doing a rpm in the first place, for the integration. And asking can be simply "looking at the documented practice of the project who you plan to integrate with".
And what nimnim say about numbering release is about the release tag of rpm, ie the practice of using 0.beta1.1 for a beta1 rpm, instead of using 1.
RPM 4.10 released Posted May 27, 2012 3:14 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes. It seems logical to tell authors to use useful numbering schemes rather then work around it.
Any person who sees Foo, version 1.3 and then Foo, version 1.3.2 would think that 'ah-hah' they must if released a bug fix version or something! Since, you know, 2 is a higher number then nothing which in human idioms is usually simultaneous with zero..
To me this seems very similar to trying to work around kernel bugs in userspace. Although in this case the bug is introduced into the metadata by upstream rather then program logic.
RPM 4.10 released Posted May 25, 2012 14:04 UTC (Fri) by gioele (subscriber, #61675) [Link]
>> That was mostly to limit the wreakage done by debianists when creating rpms, btw, ~ is absolutely not necessary for package version ordering, as long as you are careful in your numbering.
> Since when did upstream ever ask distributions about how they should be numbering their releases?
Upstream can also actively ignore distributions' best practices. For example LibreOffice uses 3.3.4.2 to identify 3.3.4-rc2. [1] A naive comparator will tell you that 3.3.4.2 (actually 3.3.4-rc2 pre-release) is newer than 3.3.4 (the final version).
[1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.l...
RPM 4.10 released Posted May 28, 2012 12:48 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Whaat? So 3.5.5 is later than 3.5.5.2?! What are they *thinking*? Nothing else in the entire world works that way...
|
|||||||||||||