On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:49 PM James Cassell <fedoraproj...@cyberpear.com> wrote: > eln9.100.0 makes the relation to RHEL cycle obvious without looking like a > RHEL tag. Is dot allowed here? Do we need eln9_100_1?
The dots would be permissible here. That said, can you describe what value you see in having the RHEL cycle represented in the RPM name? (Because that's basically the only practical effect here.) Particularly if you consider that we do not plan to have mass-rebuilds scheduled around RHEL releases, so a package that isn't updated for a long time after ELN starts tracking towards RHEL 10 is going to start confusing people the same way that having ".fc30" packages in Fedora 31 continues to do. I'm not saying "no", I'd just like to hear a clear value justification for carrying that number in the package name. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
