[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: %{?dist}, recommended or optional?



On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:30:42 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 15:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Where is the part you find "somehow contradicting"? In all three quotes,
> > using %{?dist} is either recommended or described as being optional.
> > This dist tag macro exists in order to aid you. "recommended" is not
> > equal to "mandatory".
> 
> I'm not talking about mandatory. I'm talking about the difference
> between "optional", as in "use it if you think you should", and
> "recommended", as in "use it if you are not sure you may need it or
> not".

[X] It is optional.
[ ] It is mandatory.
[X] You are free to use it if you like it or if it helps you.
[X] It is considered helpful and useful by some packagers.
[X] Some packagers use it and recommend using it.
[X] If you have doubts that you need it, you need not use it.

Shall I go on? I still fail to see where you see a contradiction.

> In some cases, when the packager has no strong feeling either way and he
> is tempted to not use it to avoid making the tag more complex, should he
> use it or not? For an example, see:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177096
> where if I add the tag, the version will be something like
> "2.0-0.1.20060103cvs.fc4", which I call ugly.

Answer this question: If you want to release the same package for FC3, FC4
and FC5, what package revisions would you give your three packages and
future updates?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]