On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 04:32:51AM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > 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, So you know beforehand how often a package will be updated in the future? > and that one update is only for e.g. glibc ABI changes -- guess > what, ABI in a release (Zod, Moonshine, etc) isn't changing Not true, for Zod -> Moonshine this was a first timer. And had gcc 4.2 landed in the usual timeframe (was expected around December) we wouldn't even be talking about rebuilds. gcc 4.2 which is now almost a month old will most probably make it into F8 very soon. > 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. Let's revert the question: "Why is it better without a disttag, out of curiosity?". There is definitely a gain with a disttag, one can argue how big it is, but what are the drawbacks? That some packages give away their age? I see that as a feature, not a bug: "Hey, bridge-utils is broken on F7. Hm, it has an fc6 marker. OK, it was built on FC6's kernel-headers from 2.6.18, no wonder it doesn't know anything about 2.6.21" Bottom points: o full rebuilds should become a must o disttags are helpful either way -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp8Kcdj8u0Mx.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
