On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:54:44 +0200 Bruno Friedmann <br...@ioda-net.ch> wrote:
> Dear Developers > > This proposal doesn't have to by applied now, so it's mainly a reflection for > the next run > 5.3dev 5.4x > > Most of the package system (rpm / apt) and associated tools doesn't play well > with beta rc string in number > making it always complicated for no good reasons 5.2.0rc2 is > than 5.2.0 > (work if we start at 5.2.1) Hi, Fedora have a detailed solution for this problem (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag). Maybe it is specific to rpm package but the solution is easy to use and provide a smooth upgrade path from rc release to stable release. For example, my personal package for 5.2.0rc1 is bacula-5.2.0-0.1.rc1.fc14. 0.1.rc1.fc14 is the release tag. The 5.2.0 stable release will have a 1.fc4 tag which is greater than 0.1.rc1.fc4. Any debian/ubuntu packager guru here ? > On what I see, most big project now use this numbering politics > alpha stage start with 5.1.6x to 5.1.79 > beta are mostly in the range 5.1.80 to 5.1.89 > rc are in 5.1.90 - 5.1.99 Because there is not a single rule for every project all around the net, I personally found this a little bit confusing. If you are very familiar with the project how to you know that bacula-5.1.64-1.rpm is an alpha release and bacula-5.1.38-3.rpm is a stable one ? -- Laurent Papier ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
