On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:20:41 -0500, Toshio wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 19:20, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Macros in URLs simply don't work. If you want macros in Source tags, > > cut off everything up to the file name like > > > I'm not sure I understand your first statement. Everything else you say > makes sense. I'm just not making the last simple leap into > enlightenment here. I guess I don't understand in what sense you mean > "don't work". Sure your example Source: <URL> was ugly but is that the > extent of the complaint or is there something further? Is an URL which contains macros still an URL? What do you do with an URL that contains macros? You can't cut'n'paste it into a browser, because it contains macros. So why include protocol, hostname and path in Source fields at all? How does the packager fetch a new release? Does he visit the web page from bookmarks? Or does he reconstruct a valid URL from the macros? > > > > Also note that only the expanded file name will appear in the RPM header, > > not the URL prefix. > > Some simple testing shows that this is true whether or not macros are > used in the Source: line. So your point is that using a URL in a Source > line is purely for the benefit of the QA'er/packager anyhow? Yes, provided that it is free of macros. --
