[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 192912] Review Request: paps

Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Tue Jun 27 01:35:59 UTC 2006

On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 19:59 -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> This seems to be a quite sane policy to have IMHO.  What can we do to
> enforce this at the brew level?

There are a few ways, I can draft up some post build tests that look for
"FC[456]" or the like.  However what I'm going to do instead is add
support for %{?dist} within brew, use ls and grep to find offending
packages, and file bugs with the packager to convert it to using
%{?dist} to signify things.  It'll just be fun to figure out upgrade
paths and the such.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060626/b4815ed8/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list