rpms/clamav/FC-3 .cvsignore, 1.4, 1.5 clamav.spec, 1.8, 1.9 sources, 1.5, 1.6

[Ville Skyttä]

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 00:14 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:

> It appears that you used release number "1" in FC3 and "2" in FC4.  Why 
> not the standard dist tag?  This numbering doesn't extend well to other 
> target dists. 

Care to explain exactly what and how this doesn't extend to?  (Maybe on
another list, eg. -packaging.)

The way I see it, as long as specfiles aren't shared between multiple
target distros in CVS but one is required to maintain separate ones for
each, disttags are hardly more than bloat (the only really useful case
being a rebuild for a new distro version where use of a disttag avoids
the need of one CVS commit to bump the release number).  Also, for
example the recent discussion on -packaging has examples where the use
of disttags may cause "interesting" effects.

Moreover, not judging or knowing whether this particular commit was
approved by the package maintainer; it did preserve the already existing
release tag scheme, which was chosen by the actual package maintainer.

I don't use a disttag in any of the packages I maintain, and I expect
people who make changes to those packages for whatever reason to respect
that choice unless there's a strict policy in effect for all packages
which contradicts that.

> Wouldn't "1%{dist}" be desirable?

You probably meant "1%{?dist}".