On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:52:03AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 11:45 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote: > > Christian Iseli wrote: > > > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 08:59:28 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > >> Me currently votes for fp for "Fedora Packages" (and matches Fedora > > >> Project at the same time, too), because that's what it is afaics. > > > > > > How about we just stay with fc7, and think of it as > > > Fedora, collection 7 ? > > > > Definitely the simplest solution so far :) > > This would save a lot of hassle. > > Why? Unless you've hard coded the dist tag in the spec file (which you > shouldn't be doing), if the dist tag changes on the buildsys you don't > even have to make any changes. A rebuild will just add the new dist > tag. Correct. > What hassle am I missing? The chosen disttag whichever it will be, needs to be backwards compatible to the previous releases to allow for proper upgrade paths, e.g. it need to be rpm-newer. For example if you change the disttag from fc6 to abc1 then foo-1.2.3-4.abc1 will appear older to rpm than foo-1.2.3-4.fc6, so no fc6 package would ever upgrade to an abc1 package. Therefore we shouldn't use abc1 as a disttag :) Jokes aside - what happens with abc1 happens with "f7", too. f7 packages would again appear older than fc6 and even fc5 etc. packages, so all upgrade paths would be broken. That's why one needs to think about the disttag, and it looks like people prefer to stay in line and use fc7. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpp3gulw76NT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
