On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:58:26PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On 18 May 2004 18:36:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > On May 18, 2004, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > The bottom line is disttags bring a lot of benefits as can bee seen in > > > their implementation in the wild, have caused no harm, and come at > > > very little expense. > > > > I don't see benefits for the core proper, and I do see problems. So > > it's not as clear-cut as you say. The reality of add-on repositories > > is quite different because their goal is to use the same package on > > multiple OSs. Issuing updates doesn't work that way. > > Disttags aren't as flexible as advertized, unless you create an ugly > hierarchy such as rh73 < rh80 < rhfc1 < rhfc2 and so on. And that doesn't > include Red Hat Enterprise Linux yet. and it never should, because RHEL is officially unrelated to FC, e.g. there will be no supported upgrade path between FC and RHEL. And yes, if you don't make sure the disttags are sorted well within the considered distribution family then we are not talking about disttags, so the comment isn't really helpful. So what's your constructive suggestion? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp6Gdjhv8wl5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
