use disttag ".1" for devel to avoid confusion

[Christopher Aillon]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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.

You're missing the point.  If a package is only updated e.g. once a 
year, and that one update is only for e.g. glibc ABI changes -- guess 
what, ABI in a release (Zod, Moonshine, etc) isn't changing so there's 
no need to rebuild that.  Just bump in rawhide and rebuild there. 
disttag doesn't gain you anything here in the branches.