On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:55:27PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:31:56PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > > > > My argument is that if packages don't get updated that often, disttag is > > rather useless as the chances are low that it will get a fedora udpate > > pushed. And on the off-chance it does, diverging a specfile once is not > > a big deal. > > > > I think this is _NOT_ the current state of affairs else we would not > > have as many .fc6 packages as we do in F-7. Those packages should have > > the disttag removed IMO. > > Maybe some, but not necessarily all of them. Taking myself as an > example, I own some python modules that may certainly be better without > disttag, python on different Fedoras have different ABIs and different module installation paths, so even if a python noarch module you have to rebuild python modules from FC6 (2.4) to F7 (2.5). > but I also have C/C++ stuff that, although stable and unfrequently > updated are certainly better with a disttag. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpvcqlc7P95j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
