I recently followed another distribution's lead and made some assumptions about the version numbering of a package I maintain, mt-daapd.
I released a bugfix in the form of:
mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this "lower" version number.
What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9 version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream.
Mike
I recently followed another distribution's lead and made some assumptions about the version numbering of a package I maintain, mt-daapd.
I released a bugfix in the form of:
mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this "lower" version number.
What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9 version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream.
Epoch bump?
Mike
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
I recently followed another distribution's lead and made some assumptions about the version numbering of a package I maintain, mt-daapd.
I released a bugfix in the form of:
mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this "lower" version number.
What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9 version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream.
Epoch bump?
As far as I know, the epoch does not override the version for the update path.
Mike
On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:37:31 -0400 "W. Michael Petullo" mike@flyn.org wrote:
I released a bugfix in the form of:
mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this "lower" version number.
What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9 version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream.
Epoch bump?
As far as I know, the epoch does not override the version for the update path.
Overriding the version is the entire raison d'être of epoch, isn't it?
Paul.
I released a bugfix in the form of:
mt-daapd-0.9-0.4.1696.fc8 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.fc9 mt-daapd-0.9-0.2.1696.el5
I had thought that the next release would be in the 0.9 series.
Now, the bugfix is upstream and the author has released the next version of mt-daapd. Unfortunately, this version is 0.2.4.2, which is lower that the versions above. I'd like to supercede the packages above with this "lower" version number.
What is the best way to handle this? I'd like to avoid using the 0.9 version, as the developer has not moved to this yet upstream.
Epoch bump?
As far as I know, the epoch does not override the version for the update path.
Overriding the version is the entire raison d'être of epoch, isn't it?
Please excuse my ignorance. I have read up on the epoch and you are right -- it provides the solution to my problem. Thanks!
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jon Ciesla -
Paul Howarth -
Toshio Kuratomi -
W. Michael Petullo