2008/12/23 Ralf S. Engelschall <firstname.lastname@example.org<rse%2Brpmemail@example.com>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > Put the under a "RPM_VENDOR_FOO" (or any other AutoFu enabler,
> > default behavior is "disabled").
> > I do not see __ANY__ consensus @rpm5.org that the patch is desired,
> > in fact quite the opposite, you have 2 negative comments on your
> > proposal.
> > I'm strongly opposed to the patch because I have __ALREADY__ seen
> > Epoch: and then Arch: and Disttag: and Repotag: being added to packaging
> > for "identification" purposes (I did the implementations) and no problem
> > was
> > usefully solved.
> > Noone (until now, yes you are using Disttag:, but you are still only a
> > single person) finds the functionality useful. The homily
> > Build and they shall use.
> > does not apply in this case there is no consensus on the intended
> > "identification".
> I also think the change is too intrusive and hence should be placed
> under RPM_VENDOR_XXX until more experience exists with it and consensus
> exists that it should be a default functionality. So, please place it
> under RPM_VENDOR_XXX...
My thought behind commiting this change was that I considered it quite
non-intrusive and only affecting those using it while encouraging use,
and improvement rather than the several different usages of RELEASE for same
It also made it for me easier to maintain of course since it modifies
files, so would you be okay with the tag itself staying and only the
being under #ifdef RPM_VENDOR_XXX?
I would think these parts being the most intrusive ones, adding #ifdef's all
for a single line here and there would be a bit messy and I think reserving
tag for possible future usage while also being compatible with packages
DistEpoch: in their spec would be convenient even if not really put to any
Received on Tue Dec 23 21:14:49 2008