[CentOS-devel] Confusing package versioning

[Ned Slider]

On 05/05/11 17:03, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 05/05/2011 04:58 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>
>> But I wrote all this perfectly clearly in my previous mail, and you know
>> exactly what happened so I don't really see the point of your question
>> other than to avoid addressing the issue?
>
> Not sure how you worked that out -

What I have worked out is that you have stated on numerous occasions in 
this thread that the dist tag isn't used in EVR determinations and I 
responded by showing a clear example (ntp) where it is.

Now, and I'm being gracious here, as I was only able to find one example 
I will admit that it _could_ have been an unintentional error on the 
part of upstream, but that does not change the fact that the dist tag is 
used as illustrated in that example.

What would have been nice is if you could have been equally gracious, 
accepted that fact and acknowledged it rather than retorting with 
rhetorical questions and derogatory implications (in other channels) 
that I must be "smoking" something.

I raised a very simple and straight forward point in starting this 
thread, and I get the impression that the majority of other responders 
herein feel likewise, yet we seem to constantly end up at a place very 
OT from my original point.

I will reiterate one last time:

If you were to use a dist tag of el5_6.centos, for example, rather than 
el5.centos (where upstream uses el5_6) then:

1. CentOS package naming will be closer to that of upstream than it is 
now, and
2. it will be more obvious to end users which upstream SRPM a given 
CentOS package is built from.

all of which IMHO would be a good thing given CentOS aims to track 
upstream as closely as possible.