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

Jesse Keating jkeating at j2solutions.net
Tue Jun 27 14:26:41 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 09:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm having a hard time getting excited about this, and an even harder
> time believing that it's something that should be mass-applied.  Even
> when an SRPM is code-wise identical across multiple branches (and at
> least for my packages that's the exception not the norm), the
> corresponding spec files are *never* identical; they have at least
> different changelog histories.  So I have basically zero use for a
> dist macro.

Wrong.  There are many times when the changelog is EXACTLY the same
across the releases.

Case in point mock.

I just spun a few new mock releases for FC-4, FC-5, and devel.  There
were packaging bugs that applied to each and every branch.  Using
%{?dist} I was able to fix it in devel, use %{?dist} in the changelog
lines, and then copy the spec file and patch to FC-4 branch and FC-5
branch. The spec files are line for line identical.  They only appear as
different after being built and the %{?dist} tag is translated.

Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- 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/20060627/9d627efc/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list