Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581220 Kalev Lember <ka...@smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rdie...@math.unl.edu |ka...@smartlink.ee --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember <ka...@smartlink.ee> 2010-07-02 12:08:49 EDT --- Rex asked me to wrap up the review for him. (In reply to comment #6) > naming: good, though I'm curious why upstream tacks on _1 in the tarball name. > ? I think I have an answer to that question. I pulled up qtsingleapplication's changelog from https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=qtsingleapplication&project=home%3Akoprok and there was this changeset: Name: qtsingleapplication -Version: 2.6 +Version: 2.6_1 Release: 1 Url: http://qt.nokia.com/products/appdev/add-on-products/catalog/4/Utilities/qtsingleapplication/ Group: Development/Libraries/C and C++ @@ -97,5 +97,7 @@ %{_datadir}/qt4/mkspecs/features/%{name}.prf %changelog +* Wed Apr 14 2010 Todor Prokopov <kop...@nand.bg> +- Update to 2.6_1. * Thu Dec 3 2009 Todor Prokopov <kop...@nand.bg> - Initial package. So it appears that 2.6_1 tarball is newer than 2.6. I wonder if upstream is going to be consistent with using _ in versions; we should be careful to avoid introducing Epoch in case they want to release, say, 2.6.1 next. rpmdev-vercmp says that 2.6_1 is newer than 2.6.1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
