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

steve steve at lonetwin.net
Wed Jul 1 16:47:40 UTC 2009

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 --


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


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.

- stev

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list