On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:27 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:03 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Friday 12 January 2007 11:48, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > Yes, we have the changelog entries added for the respin everything > > > cases, some old entries regarding changes that were made for GCJ > > > compilation when it was not as perfect as it is today, some emergency > > > local fixes doen during release times that were incorporated upstream a > > > few days later. If this is deemed not important we can stopp merging them. > > > > > > We will still add our '.N' release number to the release tag and add a > > > changelog entry saying that we have imported and are rebuilding it with > > > AOT. > > > > > > BTW, so far we had to remove the Vendor and Distribution tags from the > > > upstream spec file too, but that has been removed upstream to make it > > > easier for the distros to import the packages. > > > > I think adopting a work method that doesn't stomp local changes is very > > important, including adding an entry about importing from upstream for the > > build. > > > > I still don't like "jpp" being there, however I suppose I can live with it, > > provided others on the packaging committee can too, and we create a special > > case for it (ICK). > > I really don't like it. To be blunt, the arguments for keeping it seem > to be "Because we waaaaaaaant it." > > It really doesn't serve a useful purpose. Release should be for tagging > the build number of a package, with the exception of the dist tag, which > identifies the distribution that a package is built for. "jpp" is > irrelevant in both contexts, as these are Fedora packages, in a Fedora > repository. I would have to disagree, these are not Fedora packages in a Fedora repository, but rather jpp packages in a Fedora repository. This is exactly the distinction we want to make by including the 'jpp'. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
