On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:25 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 15:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > Brew never supported %{?dist} tag,
> > ... never say "never" ... ;)
> > > and the guidelines say that Core
> > > packages can't expect that tag to be there.
> > Well, exactly this is one of the points I consider to be a "must-be
> > discussed soon".
> >
> > At least I consider consistent and clear conventions on "NEVR"'s,
> > which
> > %dist is part of, to be a minimum requirement for closer and better
> > Core<->Extra (+external repos) interaction.
> >
> > To me, the current situation leaves much to be desired.
>
> The guidelines also mention that use of %{?dist} is optional and not
> necessary in _any_ package.
One of the unclearnesses I don't find helpful.
At the moment, we have various styles of release tags, which all are
incompatible and without any guarantee of a clear upgrade path ...
> As long as there is a clear upgrade path
> from FE4 -> FE5 -> devel than that is acceptable.
My view is different. I am in favor of one single and mandatory style of
release tag - Which doesn't really matter, all that matters is
consistency.
> As spot states though, if a new core package is going to use some sort
> of dist like part of the NEVR, it has to follow what %{?dist} would
> evaluate to, '.fc6' '.fc5' etc... This is one of the things I look at
> when reviewing a new Core package.
Now consider packages moving from Core to Extras and vice versa.,
some packages using R: 1.2.FC5, others 1.fc5.2.3, others 1%{?dist}, or
consider 3rd party add-on package providers ...
We had discussed that many times before, but without actual result. The
current work-around basically condenses to: Nobody cares much about
anybody, this whole stuff is a swamp :-/
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
