On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 20:13 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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. No, it's a bug. Hardcoding the disttag is explicitly against the packaging guidelines. 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
