On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 02:14 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
walters(a)redhat.com (Colin Walters) writes:
>> > Yes; but you still have the rpm revision number. I am arguing for its
>> > removal entirely.
>>
>> How will you workaround non-numeric versions which would break rpmvercmp()
>> without manual revisions?
>
> Perhaps the spec file could provide a little python function to fix
> upstream versions.
How do you fix '2.6.9-rc1'?
However the kernel packagers fix it now. I don't know how they do it,
but it could include:
1) Don't package -rc, backport changesets instead
2) Convert it to e.g. 2.6.8.999rc1
3) Fix RPM to have an prerelease character which sorts
lower than even nothing; Debian uses '~' for this purpose, so you
could use 2.6.9~rc1 which is earlier than 2.6.9
> Or you have an override file.
What is that?
An explicit mapping from upstream versions to RPM versions, like:
2.6.9-rc1 2.6.8.99rc1
Or maybe it could use regular expressions.
> Or (preferably) you get upstream to name their versions sanely.
Hahaha... that's a good one... I will ask Linus to use sane version
numbers. ;)
Why don't you? He seems to choose versions rather randomly; IIRC there
were a number of people upset when he suddenly decided to release a
version with 4 components. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to ask
him to use version numbers which are compatible with RPM and dpkg.