Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As you have possible seen, today I committed some fixes to sgml docs.
> Without them, I can't build the RPM package (or people cannot build
> docs).
>
> Should we consider a rewrap?
>
> Regards,
>   
Definitely NOT.

1.  It would not be that big a deal to generate a new version number.

2.  rpm supports having one or more "patch" files that are applied. 

That seems an appropriate way to resolve what are, in essence, cosmetic
issues.

The patch file is easily generated, in a checkout of the 1_2_STABLE release:

$ cvs diff -u -rREL_1_2_1 > /tmp/patch-1.2.1.rpm-diff

For issues that are cosmetic, it does not seem to warrant a rewrap,
particularly when rpm provides functionality specifically designed to
avoid that.  (Just as dpkg and Ports also do...)

It would be nice to have "absolute packaging perfection," with the
amount of separation between package management tools and the Slony-I
sources, that doesn't seem entirely reasonable to expect, at this
point.  And when package management tools are specifically designed to
accommodate such, I don't see the value in renumbering/repackaging again.

"Nice to have" would be a buildfarm-analogue where issues would be
reported frequently and early; in the absence of that, perfection of
that sort seems hard to achieve.