Request for a sponsor and a review of: pam_abl

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Wed Jul 13 15:30:51 UTC 2005


On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:33:03 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:

> On 07/13/2005 04:18 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> > Am Mi, den 13.07.2005 schrieb Michael Schwendt um 14:31:
> [ ...]
> >>>>Specfile:
> >>>>* Release should be 1%{?dist}
> >>>
> >>>Ok, so the dist tag seems to be mandatory, other than the wiki says.
> >>
> >>No, it isn't.
> > 
> > Hm, for 2 rpms without dist tag set I got for both the feedback to set
> > it. 

You are free to ignore such recommendations. I, for instance, would not
like to be forced to add %{?dist} for a noarch/data package, which doesn't
need a rebuild for the next distribution.

> I thought at least for the keychain rpm, which just puts the shell
> > script and man page into rpm the dist tag does not make much sense. For
> > packages build against specific distribution version libs I think it
> > makes sense to have an "indicator" like the dist tag in the package
> > filename.
> 
> It's main purpose, yes, is to indicate for which distribution the 
> package is meant for

That's certainly _not_ the main purpose, it's a side-effect of choosing
human-readable distribution tags. Its main purpose is in influencing
RPM version comparison in a way it is helpful for distribution upgrades
and mass-builds of a single src.rpm for multiple distribution versions.




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list