On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 16:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 7/26/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 15:32 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > On 7/26/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Read again what I wrote -- it's not about a feature that's in php > > > > (well, actually a feature of the web server) "?> ", it's about a > > > > hypothetical bug discovery process involving "<?php ". > > > > > > So should we change all php source files to use "<?php" or should you > > > fix php to accept "<?php ". Then ask yourself, should we fix all spec > > > files to add a %build, or should we fix redhat-rpm-config? > > > > Yep. We fix redhat-rpm-config. Then the next time we run across > > something unexpected happens we break packages again. Then we fix it > > again. Then it breaks again..... > > > > We're supposed to be promoting good packaging practice here. If we know > > that something as simple as including %build in your spec is a way to > > isolate your package from some subset of problematic special cases, then > > we should do that. > > Okay, so you are saying it is better to hide or mask problems rather > than fix them? Nope. We should try not to purposefully stick our hand in any fires. If we find a problem, it should be fixed, but promoting practices that we know risk triggering bugs when there are simple, straightforward, and clean ways to code it instead is just good sense. > I'm sorry, but I disagree. Probably the reason things > are so hacky as they are now is because we have been hiding problems > rather than fixing them. Nah. They're hacky because bugzilla allows jbj to close rpm bugs WONTFIX :-) -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
