Re: spring2 release number mess

Hi David,

afaik 2.5.6 is the (upstream) version number and SEC01 SEC02 SEC03 are
some kind of release additives.
Out policy at JPP has from the beginning been

%{version}-0.%{additive}.N

where the N is our count of our builds of upstreams
%{version}-%{additive}

The last release WAS 2.5.6-6.SEC01
and SHOULD HAVE BEEN 2.5.6-0.SEC01.6

Then an upgrade to 2.5.6-0.SEC03.1 wouldn't have been a problem.

Cheers
Ralph

On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 15:27 -0500, David Walluck wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 03:01 PM, Ralph Apel wrote:
> > I am now deleting the spring2 rpm package sets from 6.0/generic/free and
> > replacing them with another set with corrected release number as
> > 0.SEC03.2
> 
> What was the version number before?
> 
> This would all be fixed if we adopted a sane version policy---Version:
> 2.5.6.SEC03. IMO, there's nothing wrong with this, although it is not
> being used on Red Hat due to some (misguided) Fedora policy, which in
> turn has probably prevented it from being used in JPackage.
> 
> I guess the belief is that RPM has some problem with versions like this,
> but it doesn't. The behavior is well-defined and the proof is that this
> has worked in the past in JPackage in some of the jboss packages that
> Ralph created.
> 
> Otherwise, if we can use just X.SEC03 instead of X.SEC03.Y or 0.SEC03.Y.
> Using one number at least simplifies things. So if the last release was
> spring2-2.5.6-4, you could just make spring2-2.5.6-5.SEC03 (or even
> 4.SEC03). Again, these policies are bad as they prevent the proper
> versions from being used in dependencies.
> _______________________________________________
> JPackage-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/jpackage-discuss