On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Toshio wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 13:45, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Toshio wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 12:40, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > > > > > the 'Source-tag may not have macros' decision
> > > >
> > > > Well, if it's not a macro, you may have the situation where someone
> > > > changes the version, forgets to change the Source-tag and releases a newer
> > > > version with older software. Would the QA person notice that ?
> > >
> > If it is non mandatory, why are we still discussing this ?
>
> Possibly because someone won't admit when they're wrong? :-)
> Could be me, but you'll have to show me how.
Then you clearly have much more time than I have.
> > 2] I have many packages that _have_ to change the %setup line,
> > 230 of the 622 spec-files which is over 30% (remember perl-packages ?)
> Doesn't matter. I took a look at several of your perl spec's.
> They do:
> %setup -n %{rname}-%{version}
> which will get caught by #2 above.
And you said you hadn't seen any ocassions where %setup -n was needed and
I gave you those that did. I understand you wanted to know the number of
packages that have '-n' used and not %{version}. Still 87 do, about 13%.
Although I must say I don't see why that would be of any value in the
discussion.
> > 3] I don't rely on QA people as I'd rather automate and assume a
> > QA person has better things to do.
> That's fine. But your question was whether the QA person would catch
> the problem...
Well, we will not know, would we. I'm just stating it's useless to ask
this from a QA person if you can automate it.
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
