matt at mattmccutchen.net
Wed Sep 1 17:23:39 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 10:06 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 9/1/10 9:01 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> > Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Matt McCutchen <matt at mattmccutchen.net> writes:
> >>> I propose that fedpkg should consider a --dist option, a "branch"
> >>> file, and the name of the current git branch in that order.
> >> Or make it a branch config (eg. git config branch.$branch.dist f14).
> > This, please. Using magical branch names or files to decide what
> > release a branch corresponds to seems silly when it can be a property of
> > the branch itself.
> We essentially do this now. We look at the branch merge point, which
> tells me what upstream Fedora/RHEL branch you're tracking, which tells
> me how to set the macros. It's only when you aren't tracking a remote
> branch that things go south.
Does it work if the current branch tracks another local branch which
tracks an upstream branch? It looks to me that the code does not handle
that, but I haven't found a good way to test it. And if I want to set
up a local branch for the purpose of rebuilding a package for a
different Fedora version (e.g., systemd on F13), I am out of luck. A
"branch" file in the versioned content would Just Work in the first case
and provide a solution for the second case.
Magic inspection of the branch relationships is not a substitute for
More information about the devel