use disttag ".1" for devel to avoid confusion

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 16:56 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:31:56PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >> 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > Maybe some, but not necessarily all of them. Taking myself as an
> > example, I own some python modules that may certainly be better without
> > disttag, but I also have C/C++ stuff that, although stable and
> > unfrequently updated are certainly better with a disttag.
> 
> Why is it better with a disttag, out of curiosity?
In many cases it's: Though spec files are identical the contents of the
binary rpms aren't. directories change (e.g. %_*dir), deps change etc.

Ralf