> > above. Release is for the the release number of the RPM itself, and should
> > start with zero for each version and count up if necessary.
> Doesn't 'Release' normally start at 1?
Uh. Yes. Brain said "one", fingers said z-e-r-o. Dunno what's up with that.
Sorry.
Philosophy 101 Question: Does anyone know what standards might exist on generating Version and Release numbers for RPM spec files. ie. Version 1.2.3 Release...
Michael J. Donahue
mdonahue@...
Feb 20, 2001 9:06 pm
... Version is for the version number of the packaged app, which you describe above. Release is for the the release number of the RPM itself, and should start...
mattdm@...
Feb 20, 2001 9:12 pm
... Doesn't 'Release' normally start at 1? -Ian _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@... ...
Ian Alexander
Ian.Alexander@...
Feb 20, 2001 9:18 pm
... Uh. Yes. Brain said "one", fingers said z-e-r-o. Dunno what's up with that. Sorry. -- Matthew Miller --->...
mattdm@...
Feb 20, 2001 9:20 pm
... That is up to the packager. You can start at: 0.0.0.0.0.0.1 if you like, or even use: 344lalkdjflaksdjfoaifjpoef It is pretty arbitrary. ... Mike A....
Mike A. Harris
mharris@...
Feb 21, 2001 11:37 am
... "Standards"?! It's a good thing you put that in the plural. I was under the impression that one "should" use the Version of the Source Code (and/or...
Mark Amidon
amidon@...
Feb 20, 2001 10:20 pm
... I've often wished for some kind of "style guide" like this. It seems reasonable to me, to only reset the release number when re-writing the spec file AND...
Wil Cooley
wcooley@...
Feb 20, 2001 10:35 pm
... [snip] ... Why would you bump the release number (4) when re-building for another RPM distro? There's nothing in the spec files that I change to rebuild ...
Gregory Leblanc
gleblanc@...
Feb 20, 2001 10:53 pm
... You'd bump the %{RELEASE} "number" just because this is a different "release" of the package. For example, do you really want the RedHat release of: ...
Mark Amidon
amidon@...
Feb 20, 2001 11:56 pm
Well, I would recommend removing autogenerated dependencies from a "production" spec file, anyway. I would recommend filling in the proper Requires (and...
Ian Alexander
Ian.Alexander@...
Feb 21, 2001 12:00 am
... This is much a personal taste thing, and depends on your experience. If something doesn't work, you change it until it does what you and your customers...
Mike A. Harris
mharris@...
Feb 21, 2001 11:36 am
... The autogenerated dependencies go into the binary RPM, not the spec file. Contrast your spec file with `rpm -qRp my-splufty-app-1-0.i386.rpm` to see the...
Mark Amidon
amidon@...
Feb 21, 2001 10:17 pm
... For very picky packaging wrto perl, you also need to add an epoch, as in Requires: perl >= 1:5.6.0 to avoid some unavoidable weirdness with epoch's...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 21, 2001 11:30 pm
... I'm sorry; what's the hazard of allowing skyrocketing release numbers? -- Mark Amidon | "Even within the walls of Microsoft, ...
Mark Amidon
amidon@...
Feb 21, 2001 10:17 pm
... Mainly personal preference. It is the same reason that software designers don't name their software versions like this: Version 1, Version 2, .... Version...
Mike A. Harris
mharris@...
Feb 24, 2001 8:41 pm
... We're talking the same thing here. When I said removing them from the spec file, I was talking about using "AutoReq: 0" (or whatever it is) in the spec...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Send Email