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. > Right. I think in this case the first thing I'd want to know is what does hardcoding a disttag buy you that not having a disttag at all does not? With that information, a more informed decision could be made. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
