Quoting Dan Harkless ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > The problem of 1.7dev being the version of RPM [...]
>
> Actually, it's "1.7-dev", but I suppose that probably doesn't make a
> difference, eh?
It does, unfortunately. The hyphen is not pemitted in version and
release tags of a rpm package (as the format is traditionally
<name>-<version>-<release>). We can of course set version to "1.7" and
release to "dev1", "dev2", ... but if version string would contain
`-', it would have to be done manually. But on the otjher hand, how
often is one really building a new RPM? I would not consider this to
be very important.
> But I presume that the +dev scheme would work well with the RPM
> versioning as well. It would consider (1.5.3, 1.5.3+dev, 1.6) to be
> in order, right?
Probably yes, but I can give no warranty. RPM sometimes behaves a bit
strange (and the last documentation is for the 3.0 format).
> I could change 1.7-dev to this, but I suppose it's probably not
> worth it. I guess we don't gain all that much from being able to
> have properly-sequenced 1.7 development and stable RPMs?
Exactly. We are not building RPMs every day, so we can afford a bit of
hand editing.
> > The files containing version number shall be somehow updated
> > automatically. [...]
>
> Well, proliferation of .in files doesn't really bother me.
Well, this would apply also for wget.texi.in and that idea does not
appeal much to me.
-- jan
--------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Jan Prikryl | vr|vis center for virtual reality and visualisation
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.vrvis.at
--------------------+------------------------------------------------------
