On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 04:32 -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. I think, I am not ... > 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. The %dist tags assure a steady upgrade path on packages' EVRs between distros. ABI's, API or SONAME changes etc. are not connected to %dist at all. It's mere maintainer's convenience wrt. EVR consistency, nothing else. > Just bump in rawhide and rebuild there. > disttag doesn't gain you anything here in the branches. Right, but it does when upgrading older distros. Eg. say, you released package-0.9-1 in FC6 and package-1.0-1 in FC-7. Applying your rationale, package-1.0 must use package-1.0-2 in rawhide, otherwise the upgrade path from FC7->FC8 is not assured. Now, a critical bug has been discovered in package-0.9, and upstream advises to upgrade to package-1.0. To be able to do so for FC6, you'll have to use a release number < 1 (otherwise the upgrade path from FC6->FC7 won't work). Using %dist for FC7 would have allowed to you to simply drop you package.spec from FC7 into FC6 and rebuild == convenience. Now, this doesn't make much of a difference when maintaining "a few packages", but it does when maintaining several dozens. Also the "update" strategy a maintainer applies makes a difference, e.g. wrt. perl packages, bug fixes usually are provided by upstream (CPAN). I.e. the usual perl update/bug-fixing strategy is to upgrade older packages to newer versions. Here, %dist is a massive relief to maintain specs, because each the perl-installation directories diverge between releases. It's the same wrt. your packages, e.g. there would not be any EVR probs with your firefox packages if you'd apply %dist. 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
