[rsyslog] rsyslog version numbering

Rainer Gerhards rgerhards at hq.adiscon.com
Fri Mar 28 17:58:58 CET 2008


And this sounds very reasonable, too. Also -rc seems to alert some folks
and makes clear what they are doing ;)

Please keep the feedback flowing, very good discussion.

Just a quick explanation why I would like to settle this out of the
sudden quickly. It's a somewhat political issue. While I have no
distro-preferrence (rsyslog should run great on as many platforms as
possible), I can get the new versioning scheme into Fedora 9 if I do it
by mid next week. That is a very nice incentive ;)

Rainer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rsyslog-bounces at lists.adiscon.com [mailto:rsyslog-
> bounces at lists.adiscon.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Tan
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:01 PM
> To: rsyslog-users
> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] rsyslog version numbering
> 
> Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> > besides that, we could skip the "rc" string and simply use 4.0.12-1
-
> > like a build number which is used by some linux distributions.
> 
> Actually, Red Hat-based distros (at least) use that "-1" for
> internal changes.
> 
> Let's say there is a version: 4.0.12rc3
> 
> I (or Red Hat) decide to build an RPM based on that, so my
> version is:
> 4.0.12rc3-1
> 
> 
> Then, Rainer releases a 4.0.12rc4. It has too many new
> features in it, so I decide not to move to it. HOWEVER, it
> also has one crucial bugfix that I need. So I take that
> patch and backport it into my version. Now, my new *local*
> version is:
> 4.0.12rc3-2
> 
> So, I do like the idea of attaching rc* (because that makes
> it clear the changes are from the developer), but not a
> dash-number (-1, etc.) to the version, if at all possible,
> because those tend to be localized/internal version number
> changes.
> 
> johnn
> _______________________________________________
> rsyslog mailing list
> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog



More information about the rsyslog mailing list