On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:27:22 -0600, Josh Boyer 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.
What a sad mistake. Well, in that case not using %{?dist} is a
work-around.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag?action=diff&rev2=15&rev1=14
--
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
