Le lundi 23 février 2009 à 11:59 -0500, Michel Salim a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Patrice Dumas
<pertusus(a)free.fr> wrote:
>> b. Version numbers do not make sense for content that is not
versioned
>
> If the author has a versionning scheme that looks ascii ascending lets
> use it. Otherwise I think that the following would work
>
> Version: 0
> Release: 0.X.YYYYMMDD
>
> with YYYY year, MM month and DD day (I'd do the same for a software
> without version, and it is indeed what I used for uread) for the document
> date of publishing, or of access if publishing date is not known.
>
We'd probably want to encode the book's print edition in either
%{version} or %{release} as well. Given that the release tag is
normally associated with packaging rather than content changes (the
YYYYMMDD is normally for pre-release packages), perhaps the following?
Version: EDITION.YYYYMMDD
Release: X or 0.X
If upstream does not version properly there is plenty of precedent in
the repository for using the timestamp of its releases as versions
--
Nicolas Mailhot