Request for a sponsor and a review of: pam_abl

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:12:28 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:

> I also think, that the dist tag should always be added. Yes, there are 
> some packages, where you only install a script in a path that doesn't 
> change (eg. /etc), but to be sure, it's better to write the tag... 
> Especially, as Jeff mentions here, perl or python modules.

You didn't give a rationale as why adding a dist tag would be "better".

Mandatory dist tags give a false impression of upgrade-path safety.
As long as Fedora Extras are not integrated into Anaconda, odd things
with non-upgraded extra packages can still occur during firstboot
and prior to the first yum upgrade/update.

Mandatory dist tags also pretend that a src.rpm is dist-independent and
can simply be rebuilt for older or newer distributions, respectively. This
is not always true.

Mandatory dist tags pretend that a binary rpm is distribution-specific and
should not or must not be installed or used on a different distribution,
even if a fully ABI compatible environment is available.

Mandatory dist tags are no guarantee that an update package for an old
distribution is always older [in EVR] than any package for newer
distributions. Packagers still need to keep track of package release
versions for all their released packages and updates. It is not always
necessary to do mass-updates for all distributions if a bug only affects
an older distribution.

[...]

With regard to dist-specific Python or Perl module packages, they are a
bad example. In case Python really does an incompatible version jump
between dist N and dist N+1 (e.g. as Python 2.3 to 2.4 did), such noarch
packages need a rebuild, of course, so the new Python looks for the
modules in the changed locations. If, however, the version does not jump
like that, you end up with an old dist tag in your binary packages, which
don't need a rebuild. Or you rebuild the packages just for cosmetic
reasons (i.e. to get an updated dist tag and no important other changes).