Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > Am 08.02.2011 um 02:45 schrieb Ben Walton: >> Excerpts from Peter Bonivart's message of Sun Feb 06 00:06:37 -0500 2011: >> >>>> 1.2.3,pi,REV=YYYY.MM.DD >>> >>> This is the best in my opinion. Let's treat it as flags and only >>> allow to pick from a fixed list to keep it from getting carried away >>> and be easily checked. >> >> Agreed. Does anyone _not_ like this choice? >> >>> p = patched >>> i = i386 only >>> s = sparc only >> >> Works for me. Anything else that would be useful to define at the >> outset here? > > Two things: > - Lets remove i/s as it is good to always release a bundle. The i386 only > was used in the past if someone made a manual mistake during packaging and > wanted to respin i386 only. This is IMHO generally bad. If an error occurs > all packages should be rebuild. Introducing extra complexity to allow for > manual patching is not a good idea. We should focus on full automation and > the flag is useless for this.
I generally agree with you but I have the feeling that if there is a packaged project which have sense only on a given platform it should be possible to deliver only that; but this doesn't require the usage of a flag, it only requires the relaxation of the "bundle" rule. > - If the "p" flag is present there should be checkpkg-check that > /opt/csw/share/doc/<catalogname>/README.CSW is present. Absolutely right. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
