use disttag ".1" for devel to avoid confusion

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:31:56PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:09:05PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >>I've seen bugs filed on packagers for not using the disttag before.  We 
> >>should not encourage disttag everywhere, only where it makes sense.  If 
> >>packages don't get updated once between releases, maybe the disttag is 
> >>not useful for that package and it's usage ought to be _dis_couraged in 
> >>this situation.
> >
> >That's a sane attitude and IMHO is the current state of affairs: If
> >the packager identifies that he shares specfiles across releases he
> >grabs disttags to be able to keep the specfiles the same and not have
> >to cache integers for managing concurrent releases.
> 
> My argument is that if packages don't get updated that often, disttag is 
> rather useless as the chances are low that it will get a fedora udpate 
> pushed.  And on the off-chance it does, diverging a specfile once is not 
> a big deal.
> 
> I think this is _NOT_ the current state of affairs else we would not 
> have as many .fc6 packages as we do in F-7.  Those packages should have 
> the disttag removed IMO.

Oh, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As I posted some weeks ago
the stats up to F7 were that Core would rebuild almost everthing
(99-100%) and Extras was more on 98%.

Until F7, where it was said that no rebuilds are neccessary, so people
did not do rebuilds. Therefore looking at how many packages were not
rebuild (<=20%) to deduce that a rebuild was not neccessary is a
catch22.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- 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/20070605/95d4721a/attachment.sig>