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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] disttag



On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 00:49 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:

>With the high probability of being flamed again, RPMforge settled for:
>
>0.el2 < 0.rh7 < 0.rh8 < 0.rh9 < 1.el3 < 1.fc1 < 1.fc2 < 1.fc3 < 2.el4 < 2.fc4 < 2.fc5
>
>with the advantage of having an upgrade path between EL and FC. I know 
>it's controversial but at least if fulfills an important goal (even though 
>Red Hat does not support upgrades between Fedora and Enterprise).

The very topic is outside of the scope of Fedora Extras, however, no one
is trying to make life harder for anyone upgrading between Fedora and
Enterprise (their life is painful enough).

I'm not opposed to it. Would you be willing to try and modify the macros
I posted earlier to fit that schema?

>Disttags are never part of the SPEC file in our case but the 
>pre-processing of the SPEC file before building makes sure it is there 
>when it is needed.

The goal of the macros is to have %{disttag} defined by the build
environment, and thus, always be correct, rather than having to pass a
value to the spec for some packages that use it, since some packages
won't.

>We also have a special disttag '0' to indicate a distribution-agnostic 
>package. Which we mainly use for big packages (artwork, game data, ...).

IMHO, these packages don't need a disttag at all if they're truly
distribution agnostic.

~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!


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