--- Comment #9 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> 2009-01-22 00:24:03 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
> I'd like to remind you about the versioning/naming guidelines.
> Your current package is:
> Let's say, you take another snapshot today. Then you have to change the
> version/release to:
> The integer that comes before the date needs bumped too (in parallel to the
> alsa-lib example in the guidelines).
Actually the above explanation is not technically correct, as the following
example proves :
[wolfy@wolfy ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp
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
0:ultrastardx-1.1.1-0.1.20090121.fc10.src.rpm is newer
Of course it is.
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.
According to the guidelines, the incrementation must be done even if the
svn/cvs checkout date is bumped. See the kismet "pre-release svn checkout" and
"post-release cvs" examples in the guidelines:
I do not think what I said was wrong.
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.