Voting: repotag for EPEL

[Manuel Wolfshant]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> [...]
> The reasons why I don't vote like this ATM: Currently I would vote "no",
> as there is no proper solution for repotags in our spec files ATM
> (abusing dist is more them sub-optimal, as dist is optional, and thus we
> would have a repotag only in a subset of out packages, which IMHO makes
> not much sense). But in real life it's no "no" -- if the Packaging
> Committee is fine with having a repotag and presents a solution that
> makes it easy to move packages between Fedora and EPEL without
> adjustments then I would "abstrain", because I don't care about it
> (well, in fact I'm a slightly bit against repotags, as we have a field
> in the rpm header that serves the same purpose; having a information in
> two places sounds wrong to me, but I'm willing to ignore that).
Maybe we could ship an alias or something which would execute a command 
similar to  rpm -q --qf %{vendor} ? I suggest this because I am afraid 
that adding this flag by default to rpm -q would break other things..
.