On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:42:27 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:17 -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote: > > On 01/05/2007 08:14 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:56 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >> - 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. > > > > You're thinking of only extras here. Many core packages used hardcoded > > dist tags long before we had the ability to do them. Additionally, > > specs in extras could get approved without dist tags and then have them > > hard coded in by someone who mightn't know better. > > The core packages need to go through a review for the merge anyway. And > the latter case is a bug :) It is not a bug. Semantically, a hardcoded dist tag can mean that the package has been developed (e.g. configured, patched, customised) and tested for the single specified distribution release and that nothing else is supported by the packager (not even if it works by coincidence). Rebuilding it without packaging changes and updating the dist tag automatically would be a bug. -- 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
