The Future of Fedora Package Management and the RPM Philosophy

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:15:28PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 07:33:35PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > But the disttag is designed in such a way as to also work when there
> > is no definition for it.
> 
> If I rebuild a src.rpm with release 1.fc6 I expect that the release of
> the resulted binary rpm's is 1.fc6, not 1.
> 
> I don't know the exact rationale, but at least it has its drawbacks.

Which ones?

> In an automated build system, it would maybe be better to automatically
> insert a
> 
> 	%define dist .fc6
> 
> (whatever is applicable for the target distro) at the beginning of the
> spec file, so that the resulting src.rpm is not dependent on an
> externally defined %dist.

But that would give 1.fc6 on RHEL5, Fedora 7 etc. I think the current
solution is OK.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070609/704d3490/attachment.sig>