@FESCo (and in parts maybe for the Board, too): How to handle packaging issues for EPEL?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:38:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> there are more and more discussions about packaging issues in EPEL
> (repotag, fedora-usermgmt) where people request EPEL-specific packaging
> rules that are different from the ones used in Fedora, that got and get
> defined by the Packaging Committee.

It has not been decided on fedora-usermgmt before. Neither by FESCO, nor
by the Packaging Committee. It remains an optional tool that is not
mentioned in the guidelines.

It has not been decided on "a repotag" before.

Using %dist is still optional. And that is good.

If I understand the request correctly, there is the desire to make a repotag
mandatory. When doing that, it would conflict with an optional %dist tag.

Even longer file names. Even more information that influences RPM version
comparison. Where a forward-looking requirement of "foo > 1.0-3" used to be
accurate enough, packagers already need to be more careful and consider the
dist tag, because "foo-1.0-3.fc7" is > 1.0-3 only because of the dist tag.
Another macro that is added to the package %release value won't make it
better. By looking at only a file name you cannot tell anyway who built
the package.