[Fedora-packaging] Re: Statistics on usage of disttags in Fedora Core and Extras

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 03:00:36PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Patrice Dumas schrieb:
> > On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 02:28:20PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Those 982 packages are in my opinion good candidates for not using dist.
> > That's not completly evident. Among those packages there are a lot of
> > arch packages that weren't updated nor rebuilt, yet disttag for those
> > packages are convenient.
> 
> That why I said "candidates" -- it of course depends on the package
> itself (maybe it was just a slow devel period upstream with no releases)
> and the maintainer, if he is willing to take care of some things
> manually that dists automates.

Anything that may yield different content depending on what
release/distro it was built on needs to have a disttag or some other
manual package upgrade management function. And even if for some
packages the contents did't change between FC6 and F7, they may do so
between F7 and F8.

Otherwise indeed, the package should not carry a disttag at all, since
it will run the same on FC3 to F10 and RHEL3-RHEL6. But that is seldom
the case, even noarch packages like perl and python noarch packages
live in different folders across releases.

The fact that there was no mass-rebuild this time for F7 may or may
not have a nasty outcome. Just like exim which was "forgotten" [1] to
be rebuilt during FC5's release cycle and would have runtime errors (I
think due to a changed pam-devel package).

[1] it wasn't forgotten, it was just rebuilt too early and needed
    another rebuilt.
-- 
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-packaging/attachments/20070407/e8aa7fdd/attachment.sig>