Release tag conventions (Was: rpms/libnc-dap/devel libnc-dap.spec, 1.3, 1.4)

[Patrice Dumas]

> Upstream's specs are completely irrelevant for FE. The only thing that

I think that being able to be in sync with apstream spec is nice, although 
I agree that it shouldn't lead to bad practices. I don't try to sync
with upstream in that case, but I think that extending the release isn't 
such a case.

> matters is consistency within Fedora.

It also allows to keep spec file in sync for the different branches.

> All you are doing, is adding unnecessary and avoidable complexity.

Where is the complexity? Extending release tags instead of bumping
doesn't add complexity. If I remember well, I also do that for 
other packages, when I want to keep the branches in sync as much as possible
and avoid changelog entries when a build didn't complete due to a trivial
error on a branch but not on others, and I have to change the release to 
rebuild.

> IMNSHO, FE's conventions on release tags should be tighted and
> explicitly disallow this kind of usage.

I don't think so. It should be up to the packager.
 
--
Pat