I would prefer 0.0.0-0.1.git%{shortcommit}
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015, 7:33 AM Randy Barlow <ra...@electronsweatshop.com>
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I wanted to add a package for erlang-zlib, but I noticed that the
> upstream doesn't seem to have tagged any releases at all for the package:
>
> https://github.com/processone/zlib/issues/6
>
> Hopefully they will respond to my request, but if they do not, I am
> curious - what is a good policy for packaging when the package doesn't
> have an official version? I thought of a few schemes:
>
> erlang-zlib-YYYY-MM-DD
> erlang-zlib-0.0.YYYY-MM-DD
> The above, with git hash added at the end. This could also just be
> entered in the description, or as a comment in the spec file.
>
> The first scheme is more straightforward, but if the package ever gains
> a version in the future it will cause upgrade problems that will
> necessitate the use of the epoch of shame.
>
> The second might be nice because it avoids the epoch, but will only work
> so long as the first version of the package that upstream does tag is at
> least greater than 0.0.2016 ☺
>
> What is the collective wisdom with problems like this? Is this situation
> what the epoch is for (i.e., version schemes changing)?
>
> --
> Randy Barlow
> xmpp: bowlofe...@electronsweatshop.com
> irc: bowlofeggs on Freenode
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
-Igor Gnatenko
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
