[Fedora-packaging] Problem with tags for a package that does not use the %dist tag

[steve]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for your comments, ...

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "s" == steve  <steve at lonetwin.net> writes:
> 
> s> I decided to not use the %{dist} tag in the release number
> s> versioning based on the reasoning in the ticket. This package was
> s> approved and I check the package into cvs.
> 
> And in the review for one of the other packages you submitted
> (javanotes) I told you that you'd have tagging problems if you did
> this.  You seem to have ignored that advice.
> 
I did not intend to deliberately ignore your advice, I just wanted to 
incorporate all the the comments received on my first accepted package (of this 
nature) into all of my other submissions.

Since the ldd-pdf package was already 'approved' by the time you made the 
comment, I assumed that it would be ok. It's my mistake for not reading your 
comments on javanotes more closely. I was too hasty and over eager to get this done.

> <...snip...>
> You seem to think that not using the dist tag saves something
> somewhere; in reality, it just causes you exactly the trouble that
> you're having and doesn't really buy anything since each release is
> signed with a different key and so the packages have to be different
> anyway. 
> 

Well, now I do see the problems and also the mistake of assuming that there'd be 
something to gain.

So, considering this wouldn't it be a good idea to document this reasoning and 
actively discourage the exclusion of the dist tag on this wiki page --

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag

It states "Using the %{dist} tag is not mandatory,..." at the beginning and then 
leaves the decision up to the maintainer ...

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag#Do_I_Have_To_Use_the_Dist_Tag.3F

IMHO, the problems with building and tagging should be mentioned in the page to 
avoid further issues like this.

Thanks everyone for your comments here and on the bz.

cheers,
- stev