On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 19:00, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 04:31:09 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Err... you are completely right about it not being necessary in the
> post-release case. I am not sure why our fedora.us policy retained that
> even though it was unnecessary for all these months. The way I
> understand the older version of rpm broken rpmvercmp behavior, this
> wouldn't be a problem with those versions too.
* To be able to go back from 2.1.7a to a patched 2.1.7 in case the
2.1.7a post-release "fix" turns out to cause side-effects.
* Consistency above all.
* The road of least surprise (with regard to upstream versioning).
* To help avoid that users think foo-1.0a would be an unstable alpha
version, when in fact it is a post-release patch-level.
Also, if foo-1.0a < foo-1.0b < foo-1.0a, as presented earlier in the
proposal (the "two-way upgrade problem") exists for prereleases, why
wouldn't it exist for postreleases?