On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 20:13 +0100, Michael Schwendt 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.
I dare say this is crackrock. The dist tag says what distribution the
package was built against. Not "intended to be built against". And
hardcoding it does not actually stop it from building on the "wrong
dist", does it? You've only created a confusing situation where you have
a distag of say "fc42" on a package even though it was built against
fc666.
If you're really that worried about a package only building on a certain
dist, put a (pseudocode) 'if (%{dist} != fc42 and %{dist} != "") then
exit 1' check in %prep or something. That will ACTUALLY kill the build
on the "wrong dist".
IMHO, %{?dist} should be a MUST unless there's a damn good reason for
it, like the "giant huge mirror killing binary blob of game data" case.
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
