On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:39:50AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > Please ponder this implementation, and offer feedback.
> Since no one has offered any feedback, either no one cares, or what I've
> proposed is acceptable without comment.
> Please let me know which one is accurate. :)
I didn't reply because CVS and the internal buildsystem do not affect me.
But if you want to know my opinion, I think the actual tagging should be
done by the buildsystem and not by CVS, RPM or the packager.
I have said this before during the disttag discussions, so nothing new
Same here. Very early at ATrpms I had the disttag internal to the
buildsystem, but this is a very bad choice. It need to be passed from
Nothing against a patch to rpm that makes it easier to manage the
disttag, e.g. different distag for src.rpm that for binary rpm
(i.e. no disttag for src.rpm).
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net