On 7/5/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 18:58 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > We understand your point that it is redundant information, but I think > the better solution is to provide a source patch to fix rpm, or file a > bug against rpm and place the extra information in the changelog in > the meantime. I never said it was redundant info. I said it was in the wrong place, in an overloaded field.
So are you suggesting that the changelog section be broken up into different fields? If it is just a field name you are concerned about you could break the changelog line into seperate fields and call each field by a different name. Do you agree that historical release information is useful to have available from an rpm query command?
