Help wanted: Re: bugs.kde.org rejects tonight's CVS as outdated

[Rob Kaper]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 12:47:47AM +0200, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> > There's a code version and a release name. 
> > Feel free to express your opinion to the developers of RPM. 
> 
> For further explanation: for RPM 3.1a1 is "later" than "3.1". so people 
> having 3.1 alpha 1 rpms installed would not be able to "upgrade" to the 
> release rpms. 

Would *dash* blabla (-devel) be "earlier" than "3.1" ?

If so, 3.1-devel as code version would make sense, like this:

3.1-devel (CVS >= 20020705)
3.1-devel (3.1-alpha1)
3.1-devel (CVS >= 2002xxxx)
3.1-devel (3.1-alpha2)
3.1-devel (CVS >= 2002xxxx)
3.1-devel (3.1-beta1)
3.1-devel (CVS >= 2002xxxx)
3.1-devel (3.1-beta2)
3.1-devel (CVS >= 2002xxxx)
3.1-devel (3.1-rc1)
3.1-devel (CVS >= 2002xxxx)
3.1-devel (3.1-rc2)
3.1 (3.1)

Intermediate CVS (>=) versions should probably not be packaged anyway so it
won't matter for RPM and might prevent Red Hat from doing to use what they
did to gcc. ;)

Thanks for explaining the reason behind the different version numbers. I
hope there's a workaround for that though, I cannot imagine I am alone in
the confusion.

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | Gimme some love, gimme some skin,
cap at capsi.com | if we ain't got that then we ain't got much
www.capsi.com | and we ain't got nothing, nothing! -- "Nothing" by A