[Fedora-packaging] disttag

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Mar 1 13:41:08 UTC 2005

On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 05:56 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

>> It doesn't matter to me. I'd prefer the extra period in the Release
>> field with the simplified conditionals, but if everyone else prefers the
>> other way around, then I'll document the other way.
>+1 to Enrico's view. A simple and clean %{?disttag} appended to the release
>field. And since it can expand to virtually everything, don't abuse it for
>conditionally _guessing_ build platforms.

Let me reiterate. I am fundamentally opposed to a disttag that can
"expand to virtually everything". Hence, the macro definition of
disttag, and the limitation of the defined possiblities.

With the macro, we're not guessing the build platform. redhat-release
shouldn't lie in our buildroots, or we have bigger problems.

I vastly oversimplified the conditional cases, obviously, when used,
they should be checked for disttag existence first.

But I do see the value of %{?disttag} in the release field now, thanks.

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list