On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 05:47:57PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [07/04/2024 15:35] : > > > > OK, so if there was an opt-out, [...] > > This doesn't solve the problem you have so that's a no-go as well. In what way doesn't it solve the problem? The problem was stated as (with numbering added): On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 05:23:01PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > I have bunch of packages where the spec is > [1] present also in upstream and > [2] the package is build for epel7 too. > [3] build the package locally (outside of dist-git) often. The opt-out with 'norpmautospec' would solve 1 and 2. And actually 3 is a misunderstanding, I think. If the package is built locally, i.e. outside of dist-git, then it doesn't really matter if the original package was using rpmautospec or not, you get the srpm with the %changelog inserted. (And if you don't want to use rpmautospec, then put the opt-out in dist-git, and then 3 is solved too.) Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
