[Kolab-devel] Closing Call for KEP #5: Product Versioning
Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)
vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
Mon Apr 4 15:35:02 CEST 2011
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 184.108.40.206 for 2.3
> alpha1, 220.127.116.11 for 2.3beta4 and 18.104.22.168 for 2.3rc1 (something
> similar to GNOME: <http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointNinetyone>)? The
> example kolabd 2.3-0.1.beta1.el5 becomes 22.214.171.124-1.el5. This is also
> 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
Jeroen van Meeuwen
Senior Engineer, Kolab Systems AG
e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
t: +316 42 801 403
pgp: 9342 BF08
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Kolab-devel