On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 14:37 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 05 January 2007 14:27, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > 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. > > Being in the guidelines does not automatically mean it is correct. We're > humans, we make mistakes, we sometimes have narrow view of issues and don't > anticipate other things. Sure. But unless the guidelines are changed, it's a bug. Look at it this way, a new package the violates the guidelines either gets fixed or doesn't get in. Any existing package hardcoding it therefore has a bug. > I see much value in Michael's statement, unfortunately I don't know of a good > way to allow for that, but keep other people from shooting themselves in the > foot with hardcoded dist tags. This is one of the reasons why its in the > guidelines. Right. 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
