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

Re: make force-tag gone



On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jon Ciesla wrote:

>
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > Mike McGrath wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> In fairness... you should be testing things before you commit them
> >> >
> >> > Of course.  I've been hit by this a lot with local builds working, but
> >> > rawhide builds that fail (for whatever reason, new rpm, wierd build
> >> deps
> >> > breaking, etc...).
> >>
> >> I have issues, also, where something succeeds in a local build, is fine
> >> oin i386 mock, but dies in ppc, x86_64, etc.
> >>
> >
> > So why would you make a change to the spec file, without bumping the
> > release?  Also there's an auditing GPL legal reason (IIRC) that we're
> > doing this now.  The bottom line is this:
> >
> > Make change to a spec file.
> >
> > Bump release.
>
> Even it there's no successful build?  Is the cvs log not retained, and
> useful for auditing purposes?
>
> > Its a simple workflow that provides an audit trail that we believe will
> > keep us in compliance with the GPL.  force-tag is sort of nice to have I
> > guess, but release bumps happen all the time by everyone its not a high
> > barrier to get releases out.
> >
> > I'm not sure what else to say, its not going to happen guys unless you can
> > come up with a different audit trail that will keep us in compliance with
> > the GPL and satisfies legal.
>
> So is using TAG_OPTS=-F make tag a problem?
>

AFAIK, yes it is.

	-Mike


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