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.
>
> 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.
Prohibit hardcoding in devel, allow it in release branches if it matches
what %{dist} would expand to?
- ajax
--
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
