On Dec 27, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

>>
>> Changing the package version number creates instant incompatibility
>> and intense hostility.
>>
>> The package version is a very different thing from the implementation
>> version,
>> don't let the values confuse.
>
> Yes, of course. I know. That's why I named it "RPM format version".  
> But
> because you changed the RPM format slightly AFAIK some months ago  
> (this
> "rpmlead" etc. stuff) I would have expected that this RPM format  
> version
> is bumped. Not to "50000" but perhaps "30006"? I just want to make  
> sure
> that we do not announce an old version there although the packages are
> already using a different format.
>

Heh, your engineering POV is perfectly understood.

Literally one _YEAR_ of my life was wasted discussing
the deep semantics of the value 5 in *.rpm packages,
and my choice of XAR as a better format is to avoid
wasting _ANOTHER_ year of my life discussing stuff
that Really Doesn't Matter.

But feel free to change the _CONFIGURATION_ to
whatever pleases your engineering taste.

I'm going to XAR instead ;-)

73 de Jeff