On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 12:04 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 7/25/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 18:26 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > Also Ville insists on their being a %build section for an unknown > > > reason. > > > > I did provide a reason, you seem to choose to ignore it. > > Well you keep referencing a bug number with your argument and the > comments made in the bug you refer to seem to suggest my point of view > rather than yours. Basically the bug reporter simply did not know > what he was doing. So this bug that you refer to basically > invalidates your claim that there is a problem with not adding %build. > So you provide some reason, then invalidate this reason with a bug > number and therefore you provide an unknown or null or void or > canceled out reason. Kind of like when matter collides with > anti-matter... Bug#192422 is showing that specs without %build can trigger unexpected behaviour. The bug reporter did know what he was doing, he just didn't know that rpm had a bug in it that prevented it from working as expected. So it's better to anticipate that there might be other unexpected things when shipping without %build (either there now or added in the future when the rpm maintainer decides: debuginfos do it this way, I might as well make feature X do it that way as well) rather than letting everything work for the trivial cases we're dealing with now and then suddenly expose another bug somewhere down the road. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
