[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Repotag



On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:34:26AM -0700, Greg Swallow wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > If I hadn't a repotag, my nagios-packages would be numbered the same
> as
> > > the EPEL packages. Including the same release tag. If people then
> have
> > > problems, nobody could tell from the output whether this was an
> EPEL,
> > > non-EPEL, RPMforge or other package.
> > >
> > I can think of a couple ways to figure this out, none of which are
> very
> > difficult.  Buildhost, vendor, packager, and key signature come to
> mind.
> 
> What about if you don't have the package installed?  If you have a
> failed 'yum upgrade' and are trying to figure out what's happening you
> only see the name/arch/epoch/version/release while it's resolving
> dependancies and if Dag takes away the repotag, using his example, 'yum
> list nagios' would show that 2 versions of nagios named identically are
> available.
> 
> > > This is an EPEL issue, not a Fedora issue. Why could there not be a
> rule
> > > that says Fedora packages do not have a repotag, but EPEL packages
> will
> > ?
> > >
> > Because its just one more thing to maintain/change/whatever that so
> far
> > has only one supporter.
> 
> You can add me as a supporter even just for the reason of keeping Dag
> happy.  If you want everyone to work together (Dag, ATrpms, CentOS,
> EPEL) then respecting each others concerns is a good start.  Adding
> %{repotag} is really not that big of a deal, is it?

FWIW I would support it, too, and it's even easier than defining
%repotag, just define %disttag to be "el5.epel" or similar. E.g for
ATrpms I use disttags like "fc6.at", "el5.at" etc.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpWPDZxqbrCw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]