Request for a sponsor and a review of: pam_abl

[Oliver Falk]

On 07/13/2005 05:30 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 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.

With 'indicate for which distribution', I didn't mean indication for 
humans, but for the package manager (rpm). :-) You got me wrong, but it 
was my mistake, I wasn't 'correct' enough.

Best,
  Oliver