[Proposal] Samba 3.2.0 to replace 3.0.22
lmuelle at SuSE.de
Tue Jan 17 14:28:37 GMT 2006
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:55:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> >Unfortunately not.. fails miserably on the next cycle..
> >3.0.pre21.x 3.0.pre22.x 3.0.rc21.x 3.0.rc22.x 3.0.rel21 3.0.rel21.x
> >What would work is something like the following scheme
> >3.0.21-devel-YYYYMMDD (nightlies before the first pre release)
> >3.0.21-preX 3.0.21-preX-YYYYMMDD (nighlies after the preX release)
> >3.0.21-rcX 3.0.21-rcX-YYYYMMDD (nighlies after the rcX rlease)
> >3.0.21-stable 3.0.22-devel-YYYYMMDD (nighlies after a stable release)
> > 3.0.21-stableX (avoid this)
> Unfortunately, RPM doesn't like dashes in the version string.
> My suggestion is for vendors to move RC/PRE tags to the release string.
> For example, in ALT Linux we would do samba-3.0.22-alt0.pre1.1 where the
> last 1 is actual rpm build release and using 0.pre is guarantee for
> proper updates later when actual release comes out as that will be just
This approach is less straight forward. Therfore I still suggest to
handle this in the Samba version. From this point on no vendor has any
extra work while providing Samba pre and rc packages.
Metze: I even don't care abaout 3.0.X.98pre for pre and 3.0.X.99rc for
The only intention is to have a straight forward solution. And I'll
implement it as soon as we have a consensus.
Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ]
SuSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20060117/595d10d3/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical