On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > Please ponder this implementation, and offer feedback.
>
> Since no one has offered any feedback, either no one cares, or what I've
> proposed is acceptable without comment.
>
> Please let me know which one is accurate. :)
I didn't reply because CVS and the internal buildsystem do not affect me.
But if you want to know my opinion, I think the actual tagging should be
done by the buildsystem and not by CVS, RPM or the packager.
I have said this before during the disttag discussions, so nothing new
here.
PS Could you clarify again what's inside %{dist}, %{distnum} and
%{disttype} ? My buildsystem currently knows:
dist -> fc3
disttag -> 1.fc3
fc3 -> 1
and the necessary dot is added by the buildsystem to disttag. Only dist
and fc3 are used inside SPEC files. I think we have to rely on the macro
language for granularity anyway (say you want a patch only to apply for
fc2 and fc3, not fc1 and fc4).
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
