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-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-contrib+unsubscribe@opensuse.orgFor additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-contrib+help@opensuse.org

Sorry for the delay of my answer, I have been occupied with other things last weeks. I quite like the digit-only version numbering, but "ipe" has a _really_ weird release cycle. Every time a new major version is started, there is nothing but pre-versions for a couple of years. When a stable "X.0" version is released, the major version is increased immediately. This means, that most of pre-versions de-facto stable releases. Therefore naming 6.0pre30 as 5.0.99.30 would cause a lot of confusion, because the package's major version would be lower than the program's one in 99% of the time. I would like to ask, whether the following workaround could be accepted: The version "6.0pre30" would be encoded as: Version: 6.0 Release: pre30.0 As soon as "ipe 6.0" is released, these tags are changed to: Version: 6.0 Release: 0 I think that such an update should work well according to SUSE package conventions. Moreover a similar system is used in Fedora packages. If I changed the package in the described fashion, would it be accepted? Yours, Radomír Černoch -- Radomir Cernoch Jabber: radomir.cernoch@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:

Radomír Černoch wrote:

...

Could you tell me, if I am right, please? And whether changing "6.0pre32" to "6.pre32" could be accepted? And if "6.pre32" < "6.0"?

I personally do not like strings in version numbers and use the following scheme (so does for example Xfce):

x.y alpha z -> x.(y-1).80.z (eg. 4.6 alpha 3 -> 4.5.80.3) x.y beta z -> x.(y-1).90.z (eg. 4.6 beta 1 -> 4.5.90.1) x.y rc/pre z -> x.(y-1).99.z (eg. 4.6 rc 2 -> 4.5.99.2) x.y final -> x.y (eg. 4.6 final -> 4.6)

This guarantees the order of versions, which is not so obvious when using strings (eg. problem with python update during openSUSE 11.1 beta phase, where python-2.6beta2 > python-2.6).

-- Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o Package Maintainer Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-contrib+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-contrib+help@opensuse.org

OK, I see the problem. I will try the last attempt: What about using "6.0.pre32" for pre-versions and 6.0.0 for 'final' versions? The update should work flawlessly, shouldn't it? Sorry for too many questions over last few emails... Radek Černoch -- Radomir Cernoch E-mail, Jabber, MSN: radomir.cernoch@gmail.com Skype: radomir.cernoch ------- Original message ------ Subject: Re: [opensuse-contrib] New submit-request #4459 for openSUSE:Factory:Contrib/ipe Date: Wednesday 07 January 2009 06:18:25 From: "Marek Stopka" To: "Radomír Černoch" ------

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Radomír Černoch wrote:

...

Sorry for the delay of my answer, I have been occupied with other things last weeks.

I quite like the digit-only version numbering, but "ipe" has a _really_ weird release cycle. Every time a new major version is started, there is nothing but pre-versions for a couple of years. When a stable "X.0" version is released, the major version is increased immediately. This means, that most of pre-versions de-facto stable releases.

Therefore naming 6.0pre30 as 5.0.99.30 would cause a lot of confusion, because the package's major version would be lower than the program's one in 99% of the time.

I would like to ask, whether the following workaround could be accepted: The version "6.0pre30" would be encoded as: Version: 6.0 Release: pre30.0 As soon as "ipe 6.0" is released, these tags are changed to: Version: 6.0 Release: 0 I think that such an update should work well according to SUSE package conventions. Moreover a similar system is used in Fedora packages.

No, you can't use Release number for this, because Release is automatically generated by OBS and Release tag in package is replaced by that OBS tag...

...

If I changed the package in the described fashion, would it be accepted? No way.

Yours, Radomír Černoch

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-contrib+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-contrib+help@opensuse.org