On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 17:16, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:59:31 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> > For those who missed the great "why macros in Source fields are
> > evil/bring world peace" thread on fedora-devel-list,
>
> Nah, macros in Source fields are not evil. It's just that those, who use
> them, use them inconsequently. They fetch a new source tarball with
> up-to-date bookmarks and then don't update the URL in the Source field (so
> why put the URL there beforehand?).
Hyperbole wherever I look ;-). Frankly, not having macros in the URL
doesn't ensure that the URL gets updated, it just ensures that the
basename is correct (sometimes not even that ;-).
> And the expanded URL does not make it into the binary rpm and src.rpm
> either.
Yes.
> I will test-drive spectool when I think about it. But it won't stop
> the "whining" (-> subject), since if I found an out-of-date Source URL,
> it would need whining to get it fixed. ;)
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong when you complain about wrong URLs, be
they macro-ridden or not.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
