On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:54 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote: > * Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-03-27 15:25]: > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 15:13 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > > An important reason we need the jpp in there currently is to maintain > > > compatibility with JPackage. > > > > We have never supported repository mixing. If anything, this serves as a > > good reason that JPackage should drop their disttag. > > > > How many other repositories are there with the entire stack duplicated? > (not being sarcastic.. I really don't know of any). I know that there > were conflicts with Livna and what not a while ago, but those were for a > handful of packages only. > > As for JPackage dropping their release tag policy -- not to be the devil's > advocate, but they were here before Fedora... > > I have heard of numerous requests for technical arguments as to why the > string is needed. But where the technical arguments as to why it should > be removed? From what I have seen so far, reasons for that are pretty > much "Because it looks better, because it a policy, etc." It causes rpm ordering to be painful. The Version and Release should be wholly numeric, whenever they aren't, rpm's ordering gets rather non-intuitive. We've defined special, strictly controlled cases when it is ok to have non-numeric characters in the version or release (especially release), but only when there is a real need. So, again, where is the real need for tacking jpp on the end of Release? ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
