On Tuesday 06 February 2007 22:53, Warren Togami wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > But I will always resist arbitrary changes which lack technical > > justification (or are just plain undesirable); the fact that such > > changes are proposed as part of the Review Process does not make them > > sacrosanct. > > Regarding RPM_SOURCE_DIR vs. SOURCEn, doesn't the latter make it simply > easier to read and maintain? The former requires you to have file names > written in two or more places. Indeed, and makes it easier for a build that uses files that are not included in the SRPM to succeed. If the files are versioned, this can happen pretty easily when upgrading the package if one is not careful and forgets to change all occurrences of that file when its name changes due to whatever reason. It'll of course fail in clean build roots so such packages won't sneak into the repos, so the issue is not that critical. FWIW, I think rpmlint's error about use of RPM_SOURCE_DIR is there to remind that files in it should not be modified nor should it be used for build output. -- 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
