[Fedora-packaging] Re: dist tag revisited

[Axel Thimm]

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 
> here.

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
the outside.

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20050404/7b238367/attachment.bin