Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 07:43 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Because, frankly, poo-pooing the current proposal/guidelines in favor of
some handy-wavy theoretical lacking-actual-implementation solution, is
no solution.
Well, the point is, the current proposal does not address the "multiple
packages needlessly updating caches multiple times" problem at all.
Fair enough, I'll investigate hooking into rpm's %posttrans hooks. My
findings so far are promising.
Thus people are questioning what problem this proposal actually solves.
I've repeated myself several times what the current proposal does and
does not address (it's also *in* the proposal itself). If folks, can't
read, I can't help that. If folks disagree with the assertions:
* packaging guidelines should not include toolkit-specific optimization
hacks.
* packaging guidelines should reference upstream specs/standards
then just frickin say so.
-- Rex
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
