On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 06:29:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > But the scheme above even takes care of your multiuser- > > build-the-same-package-corner-case, so at least you have no reason not > > to be happy. > == no substantial progress on features in comparison to the current FE > recommendation. Apples are not more yellow than oranges. redhat-rpm-config patch: always ensures sane coherent buildroots, no matter what the specfile guideline: a disputable, non-mandatory recommendation > > > - Do %name, %version, %release always expand correctly (Rpm suffers from > > > a bug, where at least %name or %version (I don't recall exactly) > > > occasionally is not being expanded correctly)? > > > > URL? > > Sorry, none. > [...] > Unfortunately I don't have an example at hand to reproduce it. Let's file it under hear-say then and move on. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp3eVYhskHkB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
