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.
PS Could you clarify again what's inside %{dist}, %{distnum} and %{disttype} ? My buildsystem currently knows:
dist -> fc3 disttag -> 1.fc3 fc3 -> 1
and the necessary dot is added by the buildsystem to disttag. Only dist and fc3 are used inside SPEC files. I think we have to rely on the macro language for granularity anyway (say you want a patch only to apply for fc2 and fc3, not fc1 and fc4).
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]