[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 192912] Review Request: paps

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Jun 16 15:16:02 UTC 2006

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 10:10 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 16:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>  In Extras? No.
> >> Yes. There exist packagers who (In FE devel)
> >> * don't use %{?dist} at all
> >> * some use N%{?dist} and increment N with each iteration.
> > 
> > These are correct...
> > 
> >> * some use N%{?dist}.M and increment M with each build-iteration 
> > 
> > ...and these are not. More bugs to file!
> I'd argue there are valid cases for using this latter construct(*), like 
> fixing a packaging bug/error limited to only one fedora 
> release/platform.  I'd agree that that it's use should be rare.

IMHO, it is far too easy to abuse, and for people to use it without
understanding why it is dangerous.

> (*) especially for those packagers (like myself) that prefer to keep a 
> single specfile sync'd for all fedora releases.

I think it is a minor price to pay to have to bump spec file number for
each dist. No one says you have to _build_ those bumped spec files for
dists where it isn't relevant (as long as you keep dist package NVR
ordering correct, FC3 < FC4 < FC5 < FC6...).

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 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