https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926697
--- Comment #27 from jiri vanek <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #23) > I wonder where the .pre.0.1 part of the Version comes from? To use this versioning was my suggestion, aas it is indeed pre of b10. > It does not exist in the upstream project. Asmtools is released quite seldom, after few commits always. We can expect b10 anytime. We can not use b09, as it lacks the maven binding. From the options to use b09 + all usptream patches until now, or to pick up master in altes commit, I recommended Jaya to pick up latest commit as sources. > > If you want to denote that it's a pre-release snapshot, then you're doing it > wrong, since your string sorts higher than the eventual Release string. > Instead, you should use: > Release: 0.1.{snapshot info}%{?dist} > > See: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #_snapshots The only reason for fiddling with pre.0.1 is to ensure update when non-pre is released. So the %global major 7.0 %global minor b10 Name: openjdk-asmtools Version: %{major}.%{minor} Release: pre.0.1%{?dist} Was afaik correct, as Version: %{major}.%{minor} Release: 1%{?dist} Will always surpass it. Current Name: openjdk-asmtools Version: %{major}.%{minor}.pre.0.1 Release: 0.1.20210122.7eadbf%{?dist} Is afaik wrong. pre.0.1 do nto belong to version, but to release. Where the hashset belongs to version. and am not sure with date. In all cases the date (and maybe also the hash) in the packkage can casue it not being updatable i future, by regular : Version: %{major}.%{minor} Release: 1%{?dist} I would like to highlight - the "pre.0.1" have major reason in get update by "1" and that having hash or date in rpm version can be dangerous. Fabio, before continuing with the package review, can you state your final judgement, exactly what version you wish to see in the pkg? I'm heavily in favour of original %global major 7.0 %global minor b10 Name: openjdk-asmtools Version: %{major}.%{minor} Release: pre.0.1%{?dist} With fixed sources (not in latest spec) being clearly named with commit hash in both comment and tarball name. But not reflecting any date not hash in rpm version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
