Disttags are nice, save the disttags

[Christopher Aillon]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:09:11 Axel Thimm wrote:
>> Let's not assume packagers are dump package monkeys. Packages from
>> *Core* have been the ones that didn't carry disttags, Extras always
>> did to an extreme high percentage from day one. And there were not
>> really 10% worth of the whole distribution new packages in Core each
>> release, these were packages *consciously* moved to using disttags by
>> @redhat.com employees.
> 
> Many core packages picked up dist tags because reviewers recommended them and 
> so packagers just added that with the rest of the stuff they had to change.  
> Seriously I be if we polled all the packagers whom use dist tags, the 
> majority would state something along the line of "the rest of the repo does" 
> or "I use them on all my other packages so now it's consistant" or "the spec 
> generated for me already had it, I didn't know what it was so I didn't remove 
> it".  

* I kept getting patches where people kept adding a disttag.
* Some people actually added it into my package "for me".
* To make everyone STFU.

are my reasons.  I've had no problems maintaining a proper upgrade path 
with all the crazy mozilla/seamonkey/firefox/thunderbird stuff all the 
way back to RHEL2.  Dist tag is there not because it saves me time with 
packaging but because it wastes less time listening to others whine 
about it.


> I highly highly doubt each and every dist tag was a result of a well 
> thought out process that investigated the long term effects and usefulness of 
> having a dist tag in the spec.

Agreed.


>> And the people that added %{?dist} to the templates (Ville?) aren't
>> that unconscious either. ;)
> 
> So one maintainer decides that dist tags are useful for every single new 
> package in Fedora, and is /right/ about every single new package in Fedora?  
> I think not.  It's great that it is there and shows how to properly use it.  
> However just assuming that everybody KNOWS what it is there for when making a 
> new package and understands the consequences of using it is pretty laughable. 

Agreed.