Fedora 13 has been branched!!

[Till Maas]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:30:31AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> If every grouped update did that, Koji would be littered with special tags.
> * problems with merging from the special tags (what if dist-f12-kde440 and 
> dist-f12-someotherlib123 both carry their own rebuilds of, say, compiz? It 
> might not even get noticed if they're on different special tags. Depending 
> on which of the builds "wins", one or the other dependency will be broken)

KDE grouped updates are usually a lot bigger than most of the other
grouped updates, e.g. this has 60 packages in it:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2010-1850

Sometimes I create also a grouped update, which only contains two
packages, a library and the only package depending on it. So there is a
huge range that obviously needs to handled differently. If all packages
in an update set are maintained by the same group, there is no harm in
using a buildroot override. But as soon as several different maintainers
and there are a lot of packages to be updated and the buildroot
override is there for a long time, then using custom tags seem to be
appropriate for me.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100218/0bf8c44a/attachment.bin