On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:47:26AM -0500, Michael K. Johnson wrote: > > wouldn't it be the other way around? if i have a package that doesn't > > specifically only work with f:20 i put it on fl:3 > > You are saying that the packages is intended to work in the fl:3 > context, which is intended to be a rolling context that moves from > f:20 to f:21 to f:22, etc. > > So you're saying the same thing I am. > > It's expressing your intent with regard to the usage context.
ok. i think tforsman understood it a bit differently: to use the f:20 label on anything that is built against f:20, regardless if it is going to work with f:21 or not. so we would use f:20 label for packages that are for example intended to be replaced with future versions from f:21. say there is an update available for a package from upstream that we want, and we know it will be in f:21, but it is not getting into f:20. then we could update manually and label it with f:20 to declare the intent that we don't want it once f:21 is there because then we can just take it from fedora anyways. what other reasons could there be to limit something to a specific fedora label? greetings, martin. ps: thanks for those details on GroupSetRecipe. -- eKita - the online platform for your entire academic life hackerspace beijing - http://qike.info -- chief engineer eKita.co pike programmer pike.lysator.liu.se caudium.net foresight developer realss.com foresightlinux.org unix sysadmin trainer developer societyserver.org Martin Bähr working in china http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/ _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
