Hans, The example given below is inline with current OpenSAF release convention (frobnicator-1.7-21).
openSAF itself is going to have it's packaging, this is needed for echo system providers, And TEMs can repackage as they see relevant with in the constraints of License. Regards Murthy Extract from LSB Base specification ------------------------------------ Package Naming Packages supplied by implementations and appl 541 ications shall follow the following 542 rules for the name field within the package. These rules are not required for the 543 filename of the package file itself. 544 Note: There are discrepancies among implementations concerning whether the name 545 might be frobnicator-1.7-21-ppc32.rpm or frobnicator-1.7-21-powerpc32.rpm. 546 The architecture aside, recommended practice is for the filename of the package file to 547 match the name within the package. 548 The following rules apply to the name field alone, not including any release or 549 version. 550 Note: If the name with the release and version is frobnicator-1.7-21, the name part is 551 frobnicator and falls under the rules for a name with no hyphens. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hans Feldt > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Users] Comment on OpenSAF versioning > > > The OpenSAF version is e.g. 1.0-3 > > Shouldn't this be 1.0.3? > > The Release tag in the rpm spec is for package builds. That > means it is reserved for the packager - the user of OpenSAF. > We (Ericsson) as a user will repackage (changing the spec > file) since it does not match our system environment. > > See e.g. http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/index.html > > Regards, > Hans > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.opensaf.org/maillist/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://list.opensaf.org/maillist/listinfo/users
