On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:26 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 12:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:41 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > >>> > >>>> Let's file it under hear-say then and move on. > >>> No comment > >>> > >>> c.f. below and note the output of the "echos". > >> I think it's safe to just say this is an example of bad rpm practice. > >> If you really want/need two different sources and versions, package them > >> separately. > > > > ... you are ignoring the fact that there exist cases where this is > > impossible. > > Seriously, it's bad practice, don't do it. But don't mind me, go ahead > and do it, if it's so "impossible" to do otherwise... Check out any one tree style built GCC+newlib rpm, check out autogen + libopts (currently under review). > just don't > complain when it doesn't work. Bummer, a tool (here: rpm) isn't broken, just because it doesn't fail on the 90% of trivial cases it is being used by, but fails on the remaining 10% of complex cases? Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
