Le lundi 31 janvier 2005 Ã 17:36 -0500, seth vidal a Ãcrit : > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 17:34 -0500, Nick Bargnesi wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:04:36 -0500, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > this is a touch silly but possibly useful and it would definitely cut > > > down on the old crap blocking up cdroms. > > > > > > how about if we kill all rpm spec file changelog entries OLDER than 2 > > > years. > > > > > > they'll still live on in older srpms and rpms but it'd be a useful > > > reduction and it would make the specfiles that much smaller, along with > > > the rpm headers. > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > It'd be interesting to see how much space something like this would save first. > > Why first? What's the loss in doing it and moving along? > the changelogs would be in cvs FOR EVER and in old srpms and on old isos > and... and... and... Meet you in the server room where outbound access is disabled for security reasons and cvs is not installed on fileservers anyway. Stop thinking like a developer with full software support infrastructure and net access. Field people rely on simple console text editors for a reason - shit happens, and complex systems fail more often than simple ones. Just assume no convenience will be available and you're be not far from the reality you have today in countless enterprise or home premises. %changelog is perfectly adapted to rpm usage. This is not one of the "features" like rpm groups no one ever found a serious use for. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
