Disttags are nice, save the disttags

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:58:59AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 11:16 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > Let's revert the question: "Why is it better without a disttag, out of
> > curiosity?". There is definitely a gain with a disttag, one can argue
> > how big it is, but what are the drawbacks?
> Exactly. At least to me both as a maintainer and as user the pros by way
> outweigh the cons.
> 
> So far, the only "con" I came across is lack of clear conventions on 
> %release in those (rare) occasions a package's EVR has to walk
> "sideways" (X.fcN -> X.fcN.1, X.fcN.2).

Yes, that's true, but usually it implies that one modifies the
specfile of say FC5 w/o modifying the identical specfile in FC6
(because the above implies that they were the same). I can't really
think of many situations where this would happen (actually I can't
think of any right now, but I'm not excluding it), but there is
already a mechanism to deal with it as Ralf writes.

> > Bottom points:
> > o full rebuilds should become a must
> Well, I can only reiterate what I said before: IMO, "full rebuilds" are
> a hoax blending yourself unless they are performed in "sorted order"
> and a PITA to maintainers unless they are performed automatically.

I can think of a tool that sorts packages in a BR-sane manner (other
than bootstrap loops). But I think the easiest is to simply rebuild
twice in a row (automatically).

> > o disttags are helpful either way
> Right.
> 
> Ralf
> 
> 

-- 
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/b6a747ee/attachment.sig>