On Thu, Dec 27, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 5:09 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
>> I'm just wondering: a package created with RPM 5 is still identified as
>> a "RPM format 3" package:
>>
>> | $ file axl-0.4.12-20071121.src.rpm
>> | axl-0.4.12-20071121.src.rpm: RPM v3 bin
>>
>> With all of Jeff's rpmlead and some other changes this year, it it
>> really still correct that we define (in "macros.in")?
>>
>> | %_package_version 30005
>>
>> Or does RPM 5 need a (at least slight) version bump here to indicate the
>> package format differences which were introduced?
>>
>
> Changing the package version number creates instant incompatibility
> and intense hostility.
>
> The package version is a very different thing from the implementation
> version,
> don't let the values confuse.
Yes, of course. I know. That's why I named it "RPM format version". But
because you changed the RPM format slightly AFAIK some months ago (this
"rpmlead" etc. stuff) I would have expected that this RPM format version
is bumped. Not to "50000" but perhaps "30006"? I just want to make sure
that we do not announce an old version there although the packages are
already using a different format.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List [email protected]
