[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.

If if is, then can the Makefile be modified to prevent it, so that others
who didn't know that stop doing it?

> 	-Mike
>


-- 
novus ordo absurdum


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