[x264] Update to 0.148-20160924-86b7198 version

[Sérgio Basto]

On Qua, 2016-09-28 at 23:35 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > 
> > And what do you say about Version: 0.148.20160924-1.git86b7198 ?
> That is also not compliant with the current Fedora packaging
> guidelines.
> 
> > 
> > Because when source change, version should change. The Release
> > field is
> > to counting the rebuilds.
> Sorry, that is not how Fedora packaging works, in the case of
> snapshot 
> packages.

Yes , like I already wrote in fedoras list, versioning on packages
which doesn't have version should have 2 counters, but you win, by I'm
not following the guideline, IMHO I'm improving it, but I'm not going
discus this, because I can't win. 

I'd like point out 2 things, 1 - IMHO Package guidelines, is what it
says, one guide and is *not* the supreme truth, that I have to follow
strictly, 2 - I'm one of the official package maintainer of x264 [1] so
I felt that I have more property / authorization .

So no problem nor a big deal, we already rollback the versioning, sorry
if I brought you trouble or bother anyone, it wasn't my intention and
it was just a small detail, I think.

[1]
https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/package/free/x264/

> Please follow:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning
> exactly as written, and do not try to discuss that with us, we did
> not make 
> these guidelines, we just have to enforce them to ensure consistency
> across 
> the distribution.
> 
> There is a proposal that would change this:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/398
> (by introducing Debian-style + and ~ suffixes in Version), but it has
> not 
> been approved yet. So you cannot use it at this time.

Let me see, I can fit in what I want, in resume, my case, is about
packages without version or is a version that stalled and the package
is just maintained over the time ...

Thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.