On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Warren Togami wrote: > Dag Wieers wrote: > > > > Of course, but then you don't care about synchronizing things. You're > > ignoring examples as Gaim and most packages in fedora.us that were kept in > > sync for older distributions if they build fine and worked fine. > > "if they build fine and worked fine" is the key. It was not fedora.us policy > to keep them in sync. On several occasions we did fork specs in order to > simplify their maintenance. Well, I'm not against forking per se. But forking as a standard because you want to avoid macros is the complete other end of what Cristian was implying. > > That's not a policy you want for Fedora Core, but that was the policy for > > fedora.us. If you release clamav, you want it all over the spectrum not just > > for the latest release. > > Only because it worked and was not significantly difficult to make it so, > which was the case for the majority of fedora.us packages as they were mostly > self-contained and not reliant on quickly moving target OS libraries. Ok. So you prefer to build from the same SPEC file too because you admit forking has an additional maintenance cost. Then why not allow simple macros to avoid the same additional maintenance cost ? I'm not talking about other reasons for forking. I'm specifically talking about forking for small changes that would otherwise not require a fork. Most, if not all, of the examples where we use macros is exactly for this. And again, a large part does no require macros at all. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
