On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:39:50AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: > 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. Same here. Very early at ATrpms I had the disttag internal to the buildsystem, but this is a very bad choice. It need to be passed from the outside. Nothing against a patch to rpm that makes it easier to manage the disttag, e.g. different distag for src.rpm that for binary rpm (i.e. no disttag for src.rpm). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpyRG7jXGdeb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
