On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:56:20AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:32:04AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:51:36AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > Sure, but in my recalling this happens less often than changes in the > > > C/C++ build chain, so it may be more worth not having disttag to limit > > > unneeded updates. > > > > It's about yearly or every other Fedora release. Or twice during the > > RHEL release cycle. We do want to support upgrading from FC<N> to > > FC<N+2> starting with N=5, so it is definitely within our range. > > It has advantages, but in my opinion this is clearly a case where the > balance is not completly self evident and should be left to the packager > (it should always be left to the packager, but the balance may be on one > side or the other more clearly in other cases). Well, that's the case, disttags were never enforced, they made it into the majority of packages (89% with a 10% increase on each release for th epast 3 releases) because they are useful. If the maintainer of a package wants to use an integer cache in his basement, he's free to do so. He'll just get virtually kicked in the ass when his manual and error-prone procedure fails, until then everybody and his rabbit is happy. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpOKq57Ola6E.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
