[Opendnssec-develop] Re: [OpenDNSSEC] #15: OpenDNSSEC relase names should be package management friendly

[OpenDNSSEC]

#15: OpenDNSSEC relase names should be package management friendly
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter:  noa at resare.com  |        Owner:  rb     
    Type:  enhancement     |       Status:  closed 
Priority:  minor           |    Component:  Unknown
 Version:                  |   Resolution:  fixed  
Keywords:                  |  
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------

Comment(by noa at resare.com):

 Well, there are lots of legitimate reasons that one might want to package
 1.5b1 in an rpm package. Perhaps some of your beta testers has
 standardized on a package management solution for all their software
 deployment.

 With your proposed naming strategy at least rpm will treat 1.5a1 as a
 later release than 1.5. Should an alpha or beta package ever propagate to
 an official packaging effort their release names will probably be mangled
 so that 1.5a1 becomes 1.5-0.1.a1 (As per
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease)
 which is unnecessarily confusing as it mixes the part of the versioning
 that indicates upstream version (before the dash) and the part that
 indicates updates in patches or other package level changes.

 A better solution IMHO would be 1.4.9.1 -> 1.4.9.2 -> 1.5 (and if the
 alpha or beta stability level indicators are wanted, they can be appended
 at the end of the numeric part, i.e. 1.4.9.1.alpha)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.opendnssec.org/ticket/15#comment:3>
OpenDNSSEC <http://www.opendnssec.org/>
OpenDNSSEC