On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 03:37:50PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-04 at 14:20 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 03:14:04PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-05-04 at 13:38 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > We can actually chop the 'extra_release' bit out of the RPM spec > > > > entirely, as it is only useful for automated CI builds. > > > > > > Neat. I assume you meant that we can avoid defining it when calling > > > rpmbuild in the script, not that we want to remove it from the spec > > > altogether, right? The latter can still be useful. > > > > I did actually mean removing it from the RPM spec entirely - Fedora > > reviewers have complained about it existing multiple times, but at > > least in past I could justify it for CI purposes. > > Not sure I agree, but I don't feel strongly enough to oppose the > change either :) > > That IMHO puts it squarely into separate patch territory though, > so if you're okay with it I'll push this one as originally posted > and follow up with another that drops extra_release completely. Sure, consider it Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
