Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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.
You're missing the point. If a package is only updated e.g. once a
year, and that one update is only for e.g. glibc ABI changes -- guess
what, ABI in a release (Zod, Moonshine, etc) isn't changing so there's
no need to rebuild that. Just bump in rawhide and rebuild there.
disttag doesn't gain you anything here in the branches.
--
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
