On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 16:56 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > 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, but I also have C/C++ stuff that, although stable and > > unfrequently updated are certainly better with a disttag. > > Why is it better with a disttag, out of curiosity? In many cases it's: Though spec files are identical the contents of the binary rpms aren't. directories change (e.g. %_*dir), deps change etc. Ralf -- 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
