Great. I just pushed onto the various trackers tracking the issue -- among which is the python tracker -- support for prerelease packages (...dev and ...dev-r77655 versioned packages) so they do not overwrite alphas, betas, or final -1 and above releases.

El Miércoles 11 Marzo 2009, Tarek Ziadé escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Great work !
>
> FYI it's on my pile in the bug tracker in Python. I'll try to work on
> these before Pycon
>
> Also, note that I am planning to release Distutils as a standalone
> package before Pycon;
> since the current trunk targets Python 2.3 to 3.1
>
> Regards
> Tarek
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Gerry Reno <greno@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
> >
> > Hello, guys,
> >
> > I have fixed distutils (and setuptools remains working) with the attached
> > patch. Now, RPMs will be built according to the Fedora Package Naming
> > Guidelines:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Vers
> >ion_in_Release
> >
> > which I understand to be the most useful reference in terms of naming
> > pre-release packages. This should work correctly in at least:
> >
> > - Fedora
> > - RHEL
> > - SUSE
> >
> > I urge you patch your python 2.4s and 2.5s and 2.6s and push this update
> > to distributions. I have done that myself at my own repository.
> >
> > Now we can enjoy one more reason to build RPMs (and eggs! ... according
> > to my workbench at http://yum.rudd-o.com/SCRIPTS/ -- feel free to pick
> > its brains) DIRECTLY from the cheese shop, especially if you're using
> > pip.
> >
> > Oh, I also have pip at my repo (cd ../RPMS/noarch in my workbench).
> >
> > See attached patch. I will log bugs where it corresponds too.
> > --
> >
> > Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
> > Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
> > GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
> >
> > Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Aqua - Cartoon heroes
> > Windows 95 is not a virus. Viruses actually do something.
> >
> > Hi Manuel,
> >   You worked on my problem!  Great.
> >   So today what we have been doing to deal with the pre-release and
> > lexical ordering problem involving pre-releases is this:
> >     We impose a restriction on how the pre-release is identified.  So for
> > example if you intend to end up with a final version-release of 5.0.0-1
> > and you want to first put out some betas or release candidates then we
> > have to name them as, 5.0.0-0_beta1, or 5.0.0-0_rc1 and this is so that
> > the lexical ordering for RPM will be correct.  In other words you must
> > put the pre-release designation into the 'release' part of
> > VERSION-RELEASE.  What we had seen developers doing previously was to
> > name these as 5.0.0_beta1 or 5.0.0_rc1 (making the pre-release
> > designation part of the 'version' string) which then did not work for the
> > lexical ordering of the final release of 5.0.0-1 because 5.0.0 (version)
> > was not lexically superior to 5.0.0_rc1.  So we were able to solve this
> > problem without any code changes to distutils. But this also presented a
> > challenge for the other distribution targets such as 'sdist' because they
> > were totally unaware of this 'version-release' combination and only knew
> > about 'version'.  So as a workaround we were doing this:
> > # WORKAROUND
> > # define both version AND release
> > version='5.0.0'
> > release='1'
> > # combine them for all targets except 'bdist_rpm'
> > if sys.argv[1] != 'bdist_rpm':
> >     version = version+'-'+release
> > So this wasn't perfect but it actually worked quite well and we could get
> > 'sdist' to work properly in conjunction with 'bdist_rpm'.
> > So now with your patch all the targets should be able to set and use both
> > 'version' and 'release' and we don't need our workaround and that will be
> > great.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gerry

--

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

A copy of the universe is not what is required of art; one of the damned
things is ample.
-- Rebecca West