On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 16:37, Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dne 28. 03. 19 v 13:57 Tomasz Kłoczko napsal(a):
> dnf does not provide any signing functions and I was not even aware that someone implemented in base dnf building
> functionalities (someone is using that?)
No, DNF likely does not user rpmb and rpms.
Both libraries has 21K + 15K. It is really worth the work? Note that the split will affect ~ 16 other packages in
Fedora. And likely some outside of Fedora. They need to be notified of the split, reconsider their dependencies. For
saving 36K?
Yes, I care about every possible (even smallest) cut on the elephant skin which will die if thousand small cuts on his skin will be done :P
If that does't matter why the <censored> rpm package build produces generates so many subpackages??
If on typical system most of those packages are not optional why make so many subpackages? To make Packages table in rpm database longer only?
Not mentioning about fact that even usability of current grouping of the rpm files has zero usability in case of multilib scenarios (which could be some logical reason for thatcase but isn't)
Just for fun/Because we can(tm)?
If may I point on one cardinal argument which is .. KISS!!!
There is no any other single package which during build may require signing library (only). Not keeping sign library in rpm-sign is purely artificial. In other words probability that this package would be required in some multilib scenarios is ZERO!
Other things related to the rpm.
Why in main rpm package is possible to find whole /usr/lib/rpm/platform? That directory contains ONLY resources used during build!!! Why main rpm package includes documentation about building packages? =:-#
kloczek
--
--
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
