On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:24:17 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > > > Thanks. Each scheme will have advantages and disadvantages. None of my > > > users have complained so far and we've explained why it is there. So it's > > > strange that outsiders have a problem with it, while everyone using it > > > don't care :) > > > > Users don't complain about implementation details. They want the whole > > thing to "just work". They don't care what magic is used to make one > > package be seen as newer than another. You could even use the internal > > Epoch as a serial number (like old "Serial:" tag is still used by some > > people). Users complain as soon as the whole thing breaks or results in > > unexpected behaviour (such as compatible repositories upgrading eachother > > unnecessarily). > > No no, most of the users do want a disttag and repotag. This mailinglist > does not reflect that because very few people here are actual users. What an irony. I bet those users are mislead by the repotag inflation and don't consider looking for alternatives. Tell users how to query vendor, distribution and signature fields, after those are used properly by all parties involved. > Yes, my first paragraph was wrong, for some reason I thought fedora.us > finally decided to have disttags. Funnily, they have had disttags since day one, because it is implemented in the buildsystem: rh80 -> rh90 -> 1 -> 2 -> 3 in right-most part of release. I'm not going into a loop with regard to discussing them.