[MLton] self-compiled mlton on redhat 9

[Stephen Weeks]

> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 06:59, Stephen Weeks wrote:
> > > Ah yes, you should consider using a regular versioning scheme.
> > > As it stands now, the package name using offical Fedora rules
> > > is this: mlton-0.0-0.fdr.1.20030716, and it is quite ugly.
...
> One reason is, that if you decide to jump to x.y numbering,
> comparison breaks, see
> http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=840

I had a look at that link and it seems like it applies more to the
case where the original package version name contains non-numeric
characters and you need to choose a Fedora name.  Also, looking at

	http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines

section B says

	If the version is only numbers, then these numbers can be put
	into the "version" field of the RPM .spec unchanged.

The "New Package Flow Chart" also seems to agree with this.  Since
MLton has been using the YYYYMMDD versioning scheme for over three
years, and will for the forseeable future, it seems reasonable and in
accord with the Fedora guidelines to use

	mlton-20030716-0.fdr.1.i386.rpm
	mlton-20030716-0.fdr.1.srpm

as the package names.