On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:56 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 05:52 -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. > > > > What hassle am I missing? > The hassle, > - this discussion is causing ;) Sure :) > - of having to examine specs dist-tags They shouldn't have passed review if they are hard coded. If they did, a bug needs to be opened to fix it anyway. > - of having to adapt other SW (e.g. scripts in buildsystems, > build scripts, html scripts on web sites etc.) As far as I know, it's a single file to change. > - of a mass rebuild Which is likely to get done anyway around Test2. It's been done for the past 2 releases. > - of badly chosen dist-tags, such as .f7 That isn't really a hassle. It just needs to not be done. :) josh -- 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
