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

Re: On disttags (was: Choosing rpm-release for fc1 and fdr add-on rpms)



On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 13:37, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 11:07, Axel Thimm wrote:

> > Projects very near to Fedora Core (not "3rd party") like Fedora Extras
> > predecessor fedora.us, and fedoralegacy.org do require more often to
> > have common builds differentiating in the release built against. So
> > disttags are required.
> 
> Not necessarily. When discussing build systems, more than once the idea
> popped up that the maintainer shouldn't care about the release and that
> it would be autogenerated. These kind of build systems would be fed from
> a revision control system where you would put different distro-versions
> into different branches. How the build system generates release tags
> from that is a matter of discussion, but nothing the package maintainer
> should have to care for then.
Fully agreed.

> > And as a community project you cannot keep out of scope "3rd party"
> > repos. They also support multiple releases of Red Hat and Fedora and
> > ths need disttags (not repotags!).
> 
> Not in my opinion.
Neither in mine. IMO, what some people on this thread call "disttag"
actually is the "root distribution's" repotag. What is confusing is the
fact that RH/FC doesn't use an explicit "RH-repotag/disttag", while 3rd
party packagers apply different and partially contradicting "disttag"
conventions.

Having this in mind, I also think, what 3rd party packagers actually
need is a path into a tree of package sets originating from different
repositories, e.g.:

Fedora Core 
|
+-> Fedora Extras -> Local FC+FE Add Ons
+-> ATrpms -> Local FC+ATrpms Add Ons
+-> ....

IMO, the actual questions are: Is there a need to encode these paths
into rpms and if yes how? IMO, yes, there is a need to encode these
paths.

Ralf




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