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

[Mathieu Parent]

2011/4/4 Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) <vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com>:
> 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?

Yes (and differences as small as possible)

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

Yes, and debian will add ~ for pre-releases : 2.3~alpha1, 2.3~rc1, 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.

Still, if it is implemented, it will take time before it is included
in all rpm-based distros.


Regards

Mathieu