fc3 tags

[John Dennis]

On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 17:44 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 12:30 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> > Gérard Milmeister wrote:
> > > I noticed that some packages in Extras and Updates get an fc3 or FC3
> > > tag, other don't. Is there a rationale for this?
> > 
> > There was no agreed upon standard earlier.  Now we agree on lowercase, 
> > so use that on all future packages.
> 
> I think the question is when does a package get a disttag at all.

I realize the question was specific to "extras" which may try to enforce
its own rules, but in general there is NO enforced conventions for the
use of disttags or the format of the release tag of the n-v-r. It is
completely arbitrary at the whim of the last person who touched the spec
file. Until such time as the build tools automatically generate the
release tag I don't see how the arbitrary naming of packages is ever
going to be anything other than arbitrary given the lack of consistency
in any pool of disjoint semi-cooperating human beings (e.g. people
editing spec files for multiple distributions).

Bottom line, don't make any assumptions about the release tag. Do not
try and compare n-v-r's unless they are in the same distribution
(fortunately distributions have historically been mostly self
consistent, or a least to the point of having rpmvercmp work correctly,
but sadly there have even been exceptions to this too).

IMHO, release tags, dist tags, are a mess and will remain a mess until
the process is automated and the automation enforces consistency.
Suggesting to a package maintainer that he or she do something is like
trying to herd cats, especially if the rules are antithetical to other
goals of the maintainer (e.g. they maintain the package for more than
one distribution and they have their own conventions).
-- 
John Dennis <jdennis at redhat.com>