Re: The Future of Fedora Package Management and the RPM Philosophy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 07:33:35PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:

> But the disttag is designed in such a way as to also work when there
> is no definition for it.

If I rebuild a src.rpm with release 1.fc6 I expect that the release of
the resulted binary rpm's is 1.fc6, not 1.

I don't know the exact rationale, but at least it has its drawbacks.
In an automated build system, it would maybe be better to automatically
insert a

	%define dist .fc6

(whatever is applicable for the target distro) at the beginning of the
spec file, so that the resulting src.rpm is not dependent on an
externally defined %dist.

-- 
--    Jos Vos <jos@xxxxxx>
--    X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Phone: +31 20 6938364
--    Amsterdam, The Netherlands        |     Fax: +31 20 6948204

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux