On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:51:26AM -0400, Christopher Aillon 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? 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" > > I honestly don't care one way either way about the disttag. I use it, > but I never had the pain that other people had, and I've had to deal > with packaging all the way back to RHEL2. > > But one of the arguments being made is that rebuilds should be done to > avoid old disttags in newer releases. I think that's silly. I completely agree, this is more than silly. Never rebuild just for the disttag's sake, noone here advocates this (I hope), at least I don't. > If there's a package that doesn't need a rebuild, it doesn't need a > rebuild. Enforcing once due to disttags is a dumb idea, IMO[1]. If > people are going to enforce the "if your package has a disttag, it > must get rebuilt" rule, I'd just start using less disttags. The discussion about disttags and mass-rebuilds need to be orthogonal. Disttags are a mean to an ends, not the other way around. If both are decided to be used they *can* be combined, but that's another story. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpjKyN10elVb.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
