On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:58:59AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 11:16 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > 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? > Exactly. At least to me both as a maintainer and as user the pros by way > outweigh the cons. > > So far, the only "con" I came across is lack of clear conventions on > %release in those (rare) occasions a package's EVR has to walk > "sideways" (X.fcN -> X.fcN.1, X.fcN.2). Yes, that's true, but usually it implies that one modifies the specfile of say FC5 w/o modifying the identical specfile in FC6 (because the above implies that they were the same). I can't really think of many situations where this would happen (actually I can't think of any right now, but I'm not excluding it), but there is already a mechanism to deal with it as Ralf writes. > > Bottom points: > > o full rebuilds should become a must > Well, I can only reiterate what I said before: IMO, "full rebuilds" are > a hoax blending yourself unless they are performed in "sorted order" > and a PITA to maintainers unless they are performed automatically. I can think of a tool that sorts packages in a BR-sane manner (other than bootstrap loops). But I think the easiest is to simply rebuild twice in a row (automatically). > > o disttags are helpful either way > Right. > > Ralf > > -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp0J7Hci5fnd.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
