Patrice Dumas wrote:
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.
And incrementing the release number will automatically make it newer
than what's in older releases, so not sure where this comes into play.
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.
Um, how will something that doesn't get rebuilt trigger an update? Not
quite sure what you were just saying here...
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.
Sure, for a bugfix. But if you haven't updated any of these packages
between fc6 and fc7, you can agree that it is unlikely you'll ever have
to do more than one or two. is it really a big deal on the rare
occasion that you need to push a bugfix back to fork one thing? Sure
it's convenience which saves you maybe 20 seconds once every year? and
in the meantime confuses/pisses off alot of people apparently because
there's an .fc6 devil package in F7.
--
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
