[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use proper pre-release versioning scheme (Issue #2477)

[Michal Domonkos]

dmnks left a comment (rpm-software-management/rpm#2477)

Okay, this has turned out quite complicated in the end, due to the different moving parts that would have to be considered, such as - where do we actually use the human-friendly version string and which places should keep using the dumb numeric-only one. It's hard to draw the line. CMake needs to use the current scheme for sure, but should we also use it the `RPMVERSION` tag that we bake into built packages? And what about the python egg files, should we use PEP 440 for those? Stuff like that.

For the future reference (for self), I experimented with different approaches in my fork's `verscheme-v*` branches. One of those was submitted as draft PR #4178.

So, until CMake supports pre-release versioning natively, let's just stick with the current method, however ugly and unfriendly. It's just pre-releases after all...

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2477#issuecomment-4297235694
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2477/4297235694 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20260422/4182b26a/attachment.htm>