[Distutils] SOLVED: bdist_rpm and pre-release python packages / eggs (was: pre-release versioning problems with sdist, bdist_rpm, bdist_debian)

[Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)]

> The policy doesn't make sense in the example I quoted if you read the
> comments.   Look where it says upgrade to 0.9.2beta3 yet the example
> shows beta2.

I already told you that you need to bump the release to if you want beta3 to 
upgrade beta2.  This is for good reason.

> I can see that what is trying to be done is to add extra numerics just
> to make the numerics significant and then basically you can ignore the
> beta, alpha, etc.  But this is more confusing than helpful and its not
> necessary to make things lexically ordered.

Actually not totally true, b comes after a, so an alpha package with the same 
release integer as a beta package would be upgraded by the beta package.

>
> The goal is proper lexical ordering so that rpm/yum is happy and
> packages will upgrade correctly.  And either form accomplishes this.

Yet the policy says dots and the policy applies to over 10000 packages already 
built in the Fedora and RHEL / CentOS repos.

>-- 

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

And we heard him exclaim
As he started to roam:
"I'm a hologram, kids,
please don't try this at home!'"
		-- Bob Violence

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20090311/8d67ad37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20090311/8d67ad37/attachment.pgp>