[Kolab-devel] Closing Call for KEP #5: Product Versioning

[Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)]

Mathieu Parent wrote:
> So the proposed way works, but still, this is not Debian recommended way.
> 
> Debian recommended way is:
> - 2.5-beta1 -> 2.5~beta1
> - kolabd 2.3-0.1.beta1.el5 -> 2.3.0~beta1-1 (or  2.3.0~beta1-1~bpo50+1
> for a lenny-backport)
> 

I recon the Debian recommended way is one consideration, as generally going a 
non-recommended way is foolish at best.

> I find 2.3-0.1.beta1.el5 confusing because it put the beta info in the
> packager part and the ".1" digit is not explicit.
> 
> Maybe we can use digit-only release numbers like 2.2.91.1 for 2.3
> alpha1, 2.2.92.4 for 2.3beta4 and 2.2.99.1 for 2.3rc1 (something
> similar to GNOME: <http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointNinetyone>)? The
> example kolabd 2.3-0.1.beta1.el5 becomes 2.2.92.1-1.el5. This is also
> confusing...
> 
> So, I'm in favor of having a different versioning scheme for rpm and debs.
> 

I suppose you are in favor of a different version-release scheme for rpms and 
debs, but not necessarily a different upstream versioning scheme for tarball 
releases, is that correct?

Upstream should just continue with -2.3alpha1, -2.3rc1.tar.gz, etc.

> PS: there is a RFE for tilde support in RPM, see <http://rpm.org/ticket/56>
> 

And the RFE most likely not going to be implemented, as you-know-whom-i-speak-
of has its methodology to demark snapshot, development and pre-releases 
already.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

-- 
Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
t: +316 42 801 403
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110404/91c6a567/attachment.html>