Re: olpc-utils for new 10.1.3 builds
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson <at> gmail.com>
2011-01-03 21:37:42 GMT
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd <at> laptop.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 01:04 -0600, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>> > > Is that the result of a deliberate decision that 10.1.3 would NOT
>> > > include those higher-numbered olpc-utils versions ?
>> I'd like to know too,
> Sorry for the confusion. The 1.0.31-1 that you see now is actually newer
> than anything that was called 1.0.36.
> olpc-utils was forked after 1.0.30 (initially without me knowing),
> creating a separate branch of development, and the version number was
> incremented in this branch (rather than simply adding a new numerical
> component or incrementing the -1 part, which would be the more
> conventional way to fork).
> Then when I merged in the changes made in that branch (plus some tweaks)
> into mainline, I just incremented the version from the last official one
> (1.0.30 --> 1.0.31) to make the new official release.
> In hindsight I should have probably jumped to 1.0.37 but I hadn't noted
> well that the fork had bumped the version in this manner. Hopefully the
> forking won't happen again anyhow...
> In summary, the 1.0.31-1 version in the mock repos is the one to use
> (and is correctly included in the latest 10.1.3 builds).
It should probably then either have a more major version bump (1.1?)
or in the least have an epoch added to the rpm so upgrades will happen
properly so people that made it to 1.0.3[2-6] don't end up with