On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:56 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > It came across as implementable, not as understandability: > """" > There is an easier option 3, which is no flags in Fedora period, > regardless of what spin. Far easier to implement. > """ Sorry, I obviously typed without thinking (: > > It > > may be more difficult to enact, but it is a far sight easier than trying > > to figure out what other packages might require your flags, and if any > > of those packages are on something called a "default spin", which can > > change it's contents at any time. > > And here you're again arguing about implementation, not about > understandability. > > Where we deal with implementation, we deal with Bill's note about > "easy". It's easier to trust that your packagers haven't packaged > anything that has flags than to write a script that looks for the > Provides (or filename) in the package set but it's not necessarily right > for Fedora. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://jkeating.livejournal.com) Fedora Project (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) identi.ca (http://identi.ca/jkeating)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
