Samba Versioning Scheme [was Re: [Proposal] Samba 3.2.0 to replace 3.0.22]

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I know this is picking up on a month other thread....

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Lars Müll wrote:

> Please let us change the pre and rc release number schema.  RPMished
> products can not update from 3.0.21rc2 to a 3.0.21 final release as rc
> or pre always is bigger while compared.
> 
> Therfore I suggest something like this if we go for example from 3.0.20
> to 3.0.21:
> 
> For pre releases: 3.0.20.50preX
> For rc releases:  3.0.20.90rcX
> 
> We might even do it much simpler if we use 3.0.20.9preX and 3.0.20.9rcX.
> 
> In any case 3.0.21 will be higher from the RPM version-release point of
> view.
> 
> What's the profit for our users and Samba.org?
> 
> a) Users can update easily with rpm -F *.rpm and no longer have to use
> the --force or --oldpackage option.
> b) We might get more testers as they never will run in trouble while
> updating from a final release to pre, to rc, and the final next release.

Lars,  I feel your pain.  But I really feel this is more a packaging
issue and deficiency in RPM than our problem.  Our community is used
the how versions are done now and changing our versioning to fix
a software packaging problem is IMO unnecessary change.

And since I had to pickup the Samba packaging for Centeris, I
agree that the current 3.0.xpreY is a bad state.  But specfiles
can fix this by simply defining a working version and release
number.  Alexander's suggestion comes the closest to this.

In the end, I would prefer that vendors fix their tools.


PS:  and in case anyone missed out, we are sticking with 3.0.22
for the next release.




cheers, jerry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD69aQIR7qMdg1EfYRAlIYAKCIQmO8nu7jzh4YLKusDSk2Xi1RXwCdGTQv
lSXm95XmVdc/biPI6A3pIMY=
=iWui
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----