Disttag for Fedora 7 and beyond
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Jan 5 19:32:36 UTC 2007
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 13:27 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 20:13 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:42:27 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:17 -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> > > > On 01/05/2007 08:14 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 12:56 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > >> - of having to examine specs dist-tags
> > > > >
> > > > > They shouldn't have passed review if they are hard coded. If they did,
> > > > > a bug needs to be opened to fix it anyway.
> > > >
> > > > You're thinking of only extras here. Many core packages used hardcoded
> > > > dist tags long before we had the ability to do them. Additionally,
> > > > specs in extras could get approved without dist tags and then have them
> > > > hard coded in by someone who mightn't know better.
> > >
> > > The core packages need to go through a review for the merge anyway. And
> > > the latter case is a bug :)
> >
> > It is not a bug. Semantically, a hardcoded dist tag can mean that the
> > package has been developed (e.g. configured, patched, customised) and
> > tested for the single specified distribution release and that nothing else
> > is supported by the packager (not even if it works by coincidence).
> > Rebuilding it without packaging changes and updating the dist tag
> > automatically would be a bug.
>
> No, it's a bug. Hardcoding the disttag is explicitly against the
> packaging guidelines.
Indeed. Hardcoding the disttag is not permitted. The buildsystem will
get it right when you set %{?dist}.
~spot
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list