Re: [packman] smplayer2 versioning scheme change
Mariusz Fik fisi...@jabster.pl писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:06:51 +0300: Hi, for now, we use date format (20121017) for smplayer2 version. I'd like to change it to release scheme, like 0.8.0. But with that simple change in .spec file, for rpm, Version: 20121017 Version: 0.8.0. Is there a way handle clean update from old version (date format) to a new one (release number)? I have already prepared 0.8.0 package but not solved yet issue described above. Any help appreciated ;) What about obsoleting smplayer2 2011 or something like this? -- Dmitriy DarkneSS Perlow / Linux x64 ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] smplayer2 versioning scheme change
On 2012-12-24 12:00:38 (+0300), Dmitriy Perlow d...@open.by wrote: Mariusz Fik fisi...@jabster.pl писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:06:51 +0300: Hi, for now, we use date format (20121017) for smplayer2 version. I'd like to change it to release scheme, like 0.8.0. But with that simple change in .spec file, for rpm, Version: 20121017 Version: 0.8.0. Is there a way handle clean update from old version (date format) to a new one (release number)? I have already prepared 0.8.0 package but not solved yet issue described above. Any help appreciated ;) What about obsoleting smplayer2 2011 or something like this? No, that'll just make the package obsolete itself, as 2011 is considered to be higher than 0.8.0 by RPM. I'm usually cautious enough to cope with such situations by naming snapshots 0.0+2012 but alas, I didn't in this case. No good solution to this situation now, except to always include the timestamp, e.g. Version: 20121224+0.8.0 cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf pgpfY8fF4ub9B.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] smplayer2 versioning scheme change
Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:18:12 +0300: No, that'll just make the package obsolete itself, as 2011 is considered to be higher than 0.8.0 by RPM. I'm usually cautious enough to cope with such situations by naming snapshots 0.0+2012 but alas, I didn't in this case. No good solution to this situation now, except to always include the timestamp, e.g. Version: 20121224+0.8.0 cheers You are right. Such obsoletions are ignored. -- Dmitriy DarkneSS Perlow / Linux x64 ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
