Le mardi 11 décembre 2012 à 09:56 -0500, Stéphane Graber a écrit : > On 12/11/2012 09:35 AM, Frederic Crozat wrote: > > Le mardi 11 décembre 2012 à 09:23 -0500, Stéphane Graber a écrit : > >> On 12/11/2012 05:12 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>> On 12/10/2012 11:36 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote: > >>>> Hi Daniel, > >>>> > >>>> You'll find the 0.9.alpha1 pull request below. > >>>> > >>>> Based on what you had to do last time in Copenhagen, I believe the > >>>> following actions are to be done on your side: > >>>> > >>>> - Properly tag 0.8, currently we only have a commit but no matching > >>>> tag, this should be fixed before pulling from staging. > >>> > >>> I just forgot to push the tags, it is on my local tree. I am not able to > >>> push the tree right now because there is an issue on sourceforge with > >>> the owners of the git tree. I opened a ticket for that. > >> > >> Ok, let's hope they'll fix it soon. > >> > >>>> - Review the pull request > >>>> - Use "git pull --edit --no-ff --stat git://github.com/lxc/lxc.git", > >>>> that should do a real merge, letting you do a proper Sign-off of the > >>>> changes. > >>>> - Update the version number to 0.9.alpha1 (the version number format > >>>> is to avoid breaking RPM based distros) > >>> > >>> Why 0.9.alpha1 and not 0.9.0-rc1 ? > >> > >> So, the reason for the dotted version number is that apparently dashes > >> break the rpm magic... > >> > >> Now as for alpha vs rc, I tend to consider rc as being feature frozen, > >> which isn't quite the case with what we have in staging. > >> We're still planning a bunch more API changes and config file > >> reorganisation before considering it feature complete. > >> > >> However, you're perfectly correct that I forgot a .0 in the version > >> number :) > >> > >> So my guess is that we'll end up doing something like: > >> 0.9.0.alpha1 - December > >> 0.9.0.alpha2 - February > >> 0.9.0.rc1 - March > >> ... as many rc as needed to fix any major issue > >> 0.9.0 > > > > it will break anyway RPM, because 0.9.0 is a smaller string than > > 0.9.0.r1 (we can workaround that with "recent" RPM version). > > > > I would suggest 0.8.99 instead, if you really want to go this way.. > > I'd rather not go with that kind of "ugly" version numbers > (for lack of better words). > > I'm really not familiar with RPM but don't you have something like the > magic ~ in Debian packages version numbers (where 0.8.0~rc1 is lower > than 0.8.0)? > And also, do you absolutely need to extract the version number from the > configure.ac? > > For the Debian/Ubuntu packages, we just set the version number to > whatever we want before we upload, basically replacing the upstream "-" > or final "." by the magic "~".
Yes, RPM gained support for "~" recently (which is what I was referring by workaround). In that case, I'd suggest to release as 0.9.0~alpha1 (and not with a dot :) -- Frederic Crozat <fcro...@suse.com> SUSE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
