From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6E538515E1 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 06:36:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BD6E538515E1 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org Message-ID: <2b049bab787602c9bb5a42c9b39187a78ffbc241.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Please raise version number above RPM releases From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: debugedit@sourceware.org Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 08:36:42 +0200 Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: debugedit@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: debugedit development mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 06:36:47 -0000 Hello, We've been packaging the RPM's debugedit executable as 'debugedit' since 2006. This means that the versions of debugedit packages in Gentoo have corresponded to RPM releases. Now, we'd like to switch to your version. However, the problem is that you've restarted versioning -- at least from our perspective. If we added debugedit-0.3 to Gentoo today, it would be seen as an older version that the 'old' debugedit-4.16.1.3 (i.e. rpm's debugedit). There are hacks around this but they're all particularly ugly. Hence, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be too much of a hassle to you to raise the version number above the current RPM version, i.e. version 5.* or 6.* (if you take rpm5 into consideration, it is pretty dead though). While I do realize the problem's on our end, it's non-trivial to fix because of backwards compatibility requirements we have. And as I said, workarounds are particularly ugly and confusing, so I'd rather avoid them if possible. TIA for your consideration. -- Best regards, Michał Górny