use disttag ".1" for devel to avoid confusion

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:50:41 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:57:33PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:20:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > 
> > > > No, you don't have to. It can stay at ".1" forever; if you update
> > > > something for devel and/or a release distribution just increase the
> > > > portion left of the disttag -- that's what we do in any case.
> > > 
> > > which is just the same as not having any disttags at all and led to
> > > the pain before the disttag.
> > 
> > It's painless. Package is only updated when somebody maintains it.
> 
> We hope all packages are maintained. :)
> 
> Just introduce a package into FC6 and F7. And then have a security
> update. You start juggling around with reserving build tags like
> 
> foo-1.2.3-1 (fc6)
> foo-1.2.3-2 (f7)
> 
> fix:
> 
> foo-1.2.3-3 (fc6)
> foo-1.2.3-4 (f7)

or:

  foo-1.2.3-1.1 (fc6)
  foo-1.2.3-2.1 (f7)

  foo-1.2.3-1.3 (fc6)
  foo-1.2.3-2.2 (f7)

  foo-1.2.3-1.4 (fc6)
  foo-1.2.3-2.2 (f7)

It has worked fine for many package maintainers for many years.

And %dist does not help when bumping %version still breaks an ISO-based
dist-upgrade.

> "Hey", some people cry in the background, "we still have fc5
> maintained", "please push it to fc5 as well".

The same people who cry when the untested mass-updates are broken?
No, thanks.

You are free to use %dist when it is available and fulfills your
needs.

I'm only convinced it bears the risk of sloppy cut'n'paste mass-updates,
reduced spec readability because of conditional sections, no testing,
%changelog madness, reduced package quality. Some of that experience has
its origin in watching fellow packagers struggle with mass-updates for FE.