On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 20:23 -0500, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On 5/20/07, Jeff Sheltren <sheltren(a)cs.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> On May 20, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >
> > The EPEL Steering Committee gives this agreement only as long as
> > following points are meet by the technical solution:
> >
> > * it must remain possible to simply copy spec files between Fedora
> > and
> > EPEL branches without modifications
> >
> > * no hacks to the buildsys or modifications to the rpms after their
> > initial creation
> >
> > * the repotag must be used my all packages
> >
> > * no abuse of the disttag
> >
>
> Hi Thorsten, thanks for the proposal. I think that using some macro,
> such as %{?repotag}, or even just %{?repo} would be a good start. It
> is very easy to implement, and the same specs could still be used in
> Fedora without any problems (AFAICS). Adding it to the dist tag does
> not make sense to me. However, I am curious to know why you are
> against some sort of patch to the build system? It seems that could
> also be a nice possible solution.
>
> Aside from my question about having the build system handle the
> repotag on its own, I am mostly
> +1 for your proposal.
Allow me to add a +1 for discussion of this. Working in an enterprise
where Admins sometimes pull packages from a variety of sources, having
a repo-tag helps me.
Same from me, +1.
[sorry for the delay, one week without email, now still in vacation but
with dsl access and trying to catch up...]
I don't really care about the tech details on how it is implemented.
%{?repotag} sounds fine. As long as the end result is Release:
containing the proper string all methods would be fine.
[disclaimer: I'm the maintainer for Planet CCRMA and not only an end
user]
-- Fernando