On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:15:28PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote: > 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. Which ones? > 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. But that would give 1.fc6 on RHEL5, Fedora 7 etc. I think the current solution is OK. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpWbLb754vi4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
