On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:12:43PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:56:50PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > >> > >>Why is it better with a disttag, out of curiosity? > > > >It is easier to copy over spec files for the different versions. Those > >are rebuilt quite often in any case for changes in gcc/libc, > >so there isn't much gain in avoiding disttag changes (like it is for > >packages less often rebuilt like noarch packages). > > How often do those change ABI on stable released versions? Why would it > need a rebuild on e.g. FC6? Not on stable release but on devel. What I was meaning is that for packages that don't need to be rebuilt a disttag may be problematic since a rebuild will trigger a new version and therefore an update even when it is not needed. For binary packages rebuilds in general should lead to updates. Now, on stable release a rebuild should be caused by a bugfix, an update or whatever, in that case having dist tags helps reusing spec files while keeping upgrade paths. -- Pat -- 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
