Hi Peter, Am 08.02.2011 um 09:38 schrieb Peter FELECAN: > Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: >> 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.
What you say is already the case, see adobereader. But it is not what the flag was used in the past: it indicated if a package was re-released with the same version but only "fixed" on either sparc or i386. This is IMHO unnecessary and confusing. >> - If the "p" flag is present there should be checkpkg-check that >> /opt/csw/share/doc/<catalogname>/README.CSW is present. > > Absolutely right. :-) Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
