Disttag for Fedora 7 and beyond

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 14:37 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 05 January 2007 14:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > It is not a bug. Semantically, a hardcoded dist tag can mean that the
> > > package has been developed (e.g. configured, patched, customised) and
> > > tested for the single specified distribution release and that nothing
> > > else is supported by the packager (not even if it works by coincidence).
> > > Rebuilding it without packaging changes and updating the dist tag
> > > automatically would be a bug.
> >
> > No, it's a bug.  Hardcoding the disttag is explicitly against the
> > packaging guidelines.
> 
> Being in the guidelines does not automatically mean it is correct.  We're 
> humans, we make mistakes, we sometimes have narrow view of issues and don't 
> anticipate other things.
> 
Right.  I think in this case the first thing I'd want to know is what
does hardcoding a disttag buy you that not having a disttag at all does
not?  With that information, a more informed decision could be made.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070105/90a06178/attachment.sig>