Disttag for Fedora 7 and beyond

[Jesse Keating]

On Friday 05 January 2007 14:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > 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.

Being in the guidelines does not automatically mean it is correct.  We're 
humans, we make mistakes, we sometimes have narrow view of issues and don't 
anticipate other things.

I see much value in Michael's statement, unfortunately I don't know of a good 
way to allow for that, but keep other people from shooting themselves in the 
foot with hardcoded dist tags.  This is one of the reasons why its in the 
guidelines.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070105/35556c30/attachment.sig>