[Fedora-packaging] Packages without a dist tag

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, 2015-06-18 at 06:38 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > 
> > > Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I understood the reason for 
> > > having
> > > an exception for fedora-{release,repos}*. The log says:
> > > 
> > > 17:41:58 <tibbs|w> There's no reason for them to do so, since 
> > > their
> > > version is tied to the distro version.
> > > 
> > > Which is true, but why is that a reason to grant them an 
> > > exception?
> > > Would it cause any problems it they contained a distro tag as 
> > > well?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, because this is the package that provides the definition of 
> > the
> > distro tag. It couldn't install itself.
> 
> Can you please explain that a bit more? Do you mean that the %{dist} 
> macro is not available before fedora-release is installed, and 
> therefore we couldn't _build_ the package? Because I don't understand 
> why the package should be not installable if it had .fcXX suffix.
> 

Sorry, yes. I meant that the macro would not be available at build
-time. But as Ralf pointed out, I suppose we could hard-code the value
rather than use %{?dist}, which makes sense.

I'm not sure of any other specific rationale for not including the dist
in the Release: field. CCing Dennis Gilmore to see if he knows the
specifics.

> In any case, if there was just a very small set of packages which 
> didn't use dist tag, but the information could be deduced some other 
> way (from the version field), I think that would still work for us in 
> Taskotron, we would hardcode the exceptions.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20150618/7f59eab0/attachment.sig>