[Bug 308] Review request: ultrastardx - Karaoke game inspired by a popular commercial karaoke game

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308 --- Comment #8 from Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2009-01-21 22:58:51 --- (In reply to comment #7) Actually the above explanation is not technically correct, as the following example proves : [wolfy@wolfy ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp Epoch1 :0 Version1 :1.1.1 Release1 :0.1.20090120 Epoch2 :0 Version2 :1.1.1 Release2 :0.1.20090121 0:1.1.1-0.1.20090121 is newer or in the short format: [wolfy@wolfy ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090120.fc10.src.rpm ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090121.fc10.src.rpm 0:ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090121.fc10.src.rpm is newer In this particular case, bumping the integer that comes before the date is just cosmetic in order to help humans. It MUST be incremented if a new version of the src.rpm using the _same_ source as before is created, or if the snapshot name changes in a way that preserves the version but would somehow make yum believe that it is older than the previous version. For instance if upstream decides that the new name of the source would be 1.1.1-v3.tar.gz, this would lead to a hypothetical ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.v3.fc10.src.rpm. In this case we would get: [wolfy@wolfy ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090120.fc10.src.rpm ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.v3.fc10.src.rpm 0:ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090120.fc10.src.rpm is newer which obviously would be undesired (the newer package would appear to be older in NEVRA terms). Therefore in this hypothetical case bumping 0.1 to 0.2 is mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.