[repo-coord] Re: Versioning proposal, please comment (was: disttag -- repotag)

[Dag Wieers]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:54:58PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 13:39, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > please comment on this, I believe that a common versioning scheme is
> > > > important. It can't be that difficult to formulate an acceptable
> > > > implementation. ;)
> > > > 
> > > > I think it all turns around defining acceptable disttags, the rest is
> > > > more or less straightened out by now. I think the "fc" and "el"
> > > > disttags are liked by everybody, one needs to have a
> > > > smaller-than-"fc1" disttag for RHL releases, which could be the
> > > > proposed "fc0.".
> > > 
> > > FYI, fedora.us went with .1 and .2 for FC1 and FC2.  So no fc.
> > > 
> > > I can't recall/care to lookup why this was chosen over fc1 or fc2.
> > 
> > Freshrpms, Dries and I have settled for the following convention:
> > 
> > 	0.el2
> > 	0.rh7
> > 	0.rh8
> > 	0.rh9
> > 	1.el3
> > 	1.fc1
> > 	1.fc2
> > 	1.fc3
> > 	2.el4
> > 	2.fc4
> 
> And what about the arguments about disttags starting with letters
> mangling with the buildtag? If you want distepochs, you should choose
> letters like "a.el2", "b.el3".

In case of letters in the release-tafg (which we stress to avoidÃ) the 
release number has to be incremented too.

The packager has to make sure the release-tag is always higher than the 
previous release-tag. Eg. 1.a -> 1.b -> 2


> What speaks against the "fc" for all tag? Even fedora.us people had
> been advokating it, so it would have a chance to become a standard.

Could you rewrite this ? What speaks against "fc" ? What have fedora.us 
people been advocating ?

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]