On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 12:34 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>
> > Forewarning: I've not paid attention to the entire discussion, but...
> >
> > Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 09:04 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>> Use a repotag for EPEL4 and EPEL5 like this: add a "%define repotag foo"
> >>> in the buildsys, where foo expands to ".epel4" in EPEL4 and ".epel5" on
> >>> EPEL5; the repotag macro doesn't get defined in Fedora builders and thus
> >>> nothing will change when building a package for Fedora, even if it has a
> >>> %{?repotag} in %{release}.
> >>
> >> Just a tiny detail, picking a random EPEL package:
> >> denyhosts-2.6-4.el5.noarch.rpm
> >> then it would/could become:
> >> denyhosts-2.6-4.el5.epel5.noarch.rpm
> >>
> >> which I think is redundant, repotag should expand to "epel" only for all
> >> versions, so we would have:
> >> denyhosts-2.6-4.el5.epel.noarch.rpm
> >
> > el5.epel still seems a bit redundant. Why not just forget the repotag
> > and set the dist tag to epel5?
>
> Regardless, (correct me if I'm wrong), but I thought that the EPEL SIG was
> to only make the *policy* decision on yes/no to repotag, and leave the
> implementation details to others (like FPC). ???
Re: ???, I don't know. Thorsten chose to move the thread here for the
reasons he outlined in his initial post.
-- Fernando
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
