On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:39:50AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
Please ponder this implementation, and offer feedback.
Since no one has offered any feedback, either no one cares, or what I've proposed is acceptable without comment.
Please let me know which one is accurate. :)
I didn't reply because CVS and the internal buildsystem do not affect me. But if you want to know my opinion, I think the actual tagging should be done by the buildsystem and not by CVS, RPM or the packager.
I have said this before during the disttag discussions, so nothing new here.
Same here. Very early at ATrpms I had the disttag internal to the buildsystem, but this is a very bad choice. It need to be passed from the outside.
Nothing against a patch to rpm that makes it easier to manage the disttag, e.g. different distag for src.rpm that for binary rpm (i.e. no disttag for src.rpm).