Reindl Harald wrote:
> to make that clear
>
> Version:
> Release: MMDD.1%{?dist}
>
> where the .1 is the typical usage of Release
This should actually be:
Release: 1.MMDD%{?dist}
as per the guidelines.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://l
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:38:10PM -0500, Jaroslav Skarvada wrote:
> they now use 'daily-MMDD' as the version, it is even shown in the
> about dialog. They provide daily builds. It doesn't seem they are
> going to change this release model in the near future (but I will
> recheck with them). Pe
- Original Message -
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas < opensou...@till.name > wrote:
>
>
> On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD
> > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD
> > format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't
> explicitly
> > covered in the packa
Am 30.11.2015 um 18:58 schrieb Till Maas:
On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD
format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly
covered in the packaging guidelines that I c
On Mo, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:28:57 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD
> format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly
> covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find.
If you make it as a post relea
I have a project that stopped providing versioned releases and went to a
rolling release model using the date.
In this case these are not "pre" or "post" releases or snapshot releases.
Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in MMDD
format so there shouldn't be a upgrade