Disttag for Fedora 7 and beyond

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 20:39 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:27:22 -0600, Josh Boyer 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.
> 
> What a sad mistake. Well, in that case not using %{?dist} is a
> work-around.

Very true.

> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag?action=diff&rev2=15&rev1=14

That was already implied by the line above it, but it was unclear.  I
asked it to be clarified.

josh