On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 12:00 -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 05:02:25PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > > But there is a real use to having it in the filename and EVR info, > > despite the fact that we're using the release tag for something it wasn't > > designed for. > > Why are you against putting repotags into a separate RPM tag and then > having that RPM tag appear in the filename and in the default rpm -q > output? I see that as a compromise between those who don't see a need > for it to appear in the file/package name at all, and those who want > to overload the Release tag. Yes, it requires the *configuration* of > rpm and the buildsystems to change. Yes, it may require tools to > change (but tools shouldn't be parsing filenames). Change is how > improvements are made. Start by changing things for FC4, and continue > to use the legacy methods for older distros. Thank you! At last a voice of reason in this long and heated thread. I think this, frankly, is a great solution. It satisfies the technical arguments that have been made (at least the ones I have seen) on both sides. If everyone is willing to compromise, I would certainly support this direction. Cheers, Chris -- ==================================== "If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' someone else's dog around." --Cowboy Wisdom