Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492091 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #3 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <[email protected]> 2009-03-25 12:13:24 EDT --- I'll do a full review later today but as the spec looks so simple -- the one mistake I see right away is the Version/Release: Version: 3.0.3.1.%{alphatag} Release: 2%{?dist} Should be more like: Version: 3.0.3.1 Release: 2.%{alphatag}%{?dist} Or (if 3.0.3.1 hasn't been released yet) Version: 3.0.3.1 Release: 0.2.%{alphatag}%{?dist} Having the alpha tag in the version can lead to situtations where the package will not upgrade due to rpm thinking that the current version is more recent than the new version. For instance, if we had this: Current Version: 3.0.3.1.20090325svn Next Version: 3.0.3.1.3 Rpm will evaluate "20090325" as being larger than "3" and thus not upgrade the package. Our naming and versioning rules are documented here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
