On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 13:02 +0100, Bill Crawford wrote:
> 2008/7/11 Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> [...]
> > No offense, but as far as I'm concerned I'd trade your entire rpm update
> > for the changes I listed above. Nothing in the list of rpm changes I
> > saw was so earth shattering that it even comes close to the reality of
> > being able to use a sane SCM as a canoncial source repo IMO.
>
> There's nothing to stop you now (AFAICS) using a URL that points into
> gitweb or cgit to specify the source, ... right?
You could point to a repo, but would need a rather complex URL or
Source0 line in order specify things like the branch or tag. What's
more though is the fact that if you want to support both srpm style
packages and src repo style packages, then you really shouldn't overload
source0 like that, and you would ideally still like to be able to have a
URL that's *about* the package, also not overloaded to be an scm. So,
yeah, you *could*, but it would not work nicely with srpm style
packaging and such. Not to mention that you would need a very specific
syntax for the URL since just the URL itself for a src repo does not
always denote the repo type (several repo types can have an http url for
example).
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
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
