On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:31:56PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:09:05PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > >>I've seen bugs filed on packagers for not using the disttag before. We > >>should not encourage disttag everywhere, only where it makes sense. If > >>packages don't get updated once between releases, maybe the disttag is > >>not useful for that package and it's usage ought to be _dis_couraged in > >>this situation. > > > >That's a sane attitude and IMHO is the current state of affairs: If > >the packager identifies that he shares specfiles across releases he > >grabs disttags to be able to keep the specfiles the same and not have > >to cache integers for managing concurrent releases. > > 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. Oh, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As I posted some weeks ago the stats up to F7 were that Core would rebuild almost everthing (99-100%) and Extras was more on 98%. Until F7, where it was said that no rebuilds are neccessary, so people did not do rebuilds. Therefore looking at how many packages were not rebuild (<=20%) to deduce that a rebuild was not neccessary is a catch22. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpIpE61kdIqO.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
