On Saturday 18 December 2004 23:46, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:15:25 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:57:23 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:58:45 +0100, nodata <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > An rpm tool doesn't care about the filename, so why remove it? > > > > > > > > You have missed the point entirely. The filaname for an rpm is > > > > typically constructed from a number of header tags as part of the > > > > build process. The distrotags that are being used arent just in the > > > > filename they are in the RELEASE tag. > > > > > > Which is part of the problem. > > > > Please indicate where the problem is. > > Done that before in this thread. Can you please give the timestamp of that mail please? I can't find it in this long thread. > > The current scheme has the following advantages: > > > > + It allows people to build trust for packages because the source becomes > > visible (this works in both ways, if a package is good or bad) > > *gasp* > > Please tell me that you just made a joke. > > People should _never_ deduce the origin of a package from its > filename. > > [They may start to trust the signer of packages and the signed > packages which come from him.] People express a certain trust in a packager when they download and install rpms from his site or when they import that packagers key and configure their apt/yum/smart to also use that packagers group of signed rpms. In my opinion this is unrelated to having a repotag added to the release tag. kind regards, Dries