On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 19:32:36 +0100,
Michal Ambroz <rebus@seznam.cz> wrote:
>
> Versioning scheme for nikto was sofar: 2.01, 2.02, 2.03
> The new nikto release version is 2.1.1 .
> Version 2.1.1 is numerically lower than 2.03, which is currently present in the distribution.
>
> Please could you give me some hints what is the best approach how to
> deal with this verison scheme change?

I would think that bumping the epoch is probably the right thing to do.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Michal Ambroz wrote, On 03/21/2010 07:32 PM:
> Dear fellows.
> I would like to ask you for guidance what should be the best way to resolve the
> collision in versioning scheme introduced in the upstream nikto package.
>
> I am trying to submit package update to the fedora
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575605
>

So you are not the Fedora nikto packager? It is the packagers job to
update the package. He might appreciate your help, but you should
contact him and not file a review request. This looks like an
unfortunate and probably unintended attempt at hijacking the package.

> Versioning scheme for nikto was sofar: 2.01, 2.02, 2.03
> The new nikto release version is 2.1.1 .
> Version 2.1.1 is numerically lower than 2.03, which is currently present in the distribution.
>
> Please could you give me some hints what is the best approach how to
> deal with this verison scheme change?
>
> Rename the package to something like nikto2 with new versioning scheme?
> Is there some other way?
>

(As Bruno said:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Use_of_Epochs .)

It seems like a wise decision upstream to change their versioning
scheme, but perhaps they should be suggested to bump it to something
less ambiguous - for example 2.3.1.

/Mads
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

On 2010-03-22Â*03:07:30，"BrunoÂ*WolffÂ*III"Â*<bruno@wolff.t o>Â* wrote：
>IÂ*wouldÂ*thinkÂ*thatÂ*bumpingÂ*theÂ*epochÂ*isÂ*p robablyÂ*theÂ*rightÂ*thingÂ*toÂ*do.
>--
+1, debian guys already bump epoch for this package.

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging