Hi Jason,
Thanks for your comments, ...
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"s" == steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
s> I decided to not use the %{dist} tag in the release number
s> versioning based on the reasoning in the ticket. This package was
s> approved and I check the package into cvs.
And in the review for one of the other packages you submitted
(javanotes) I told you that you'd have tagging problems if you did
this. You seem to have ignored that advice.
I did not intend to deliberately ignore your advice, I just wanted to
incorporate all the the comments received on my first accepted package (of this
nature) into all of my other submissions.
Since the ldd-pdf package was already 'approved' by the time you made the
comment, I assumed that it would be ok. It's my mistake for not reading your
comments on javanotes more closely. I was too hasty and over eager to get this done.
<...snip...>
You seem to think that not using the dist tag saves something
somewhere; in reality, it just causes you exactly the trouble that
you're having and doesn't really buy anything since each release is
signed with a different key and so the packages have to be different
anyway.
Well, now I do see the problems and also the mistake of assuming that there'd be
something to gain.
So, considering this wouldn't it be a good idea to document this reasoning and
actively discourage the exclusion of the dist tag on this wiki page --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
It states "Using the %{dist} tag is not mandatory,..." at the beginning and then
leaves the decision up to the maintainer ...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag#Do_I_Have_To_Use_the_Dist_Tag.3F
IMHO, the problems with building and tagging should be mentioned in the page to
avoid further issues like this.
Thanks everyone for your comments here and on the bz.
cheers,
- stev
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
