>>>>> "PM" == Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: PM> Rpm doesn't support that either as of 4.4.2.x, but the parsing of PM> Requires(foo) attributes is somewhat broken so it doesn't report PM> the error as such in all cases (yes, it's a bug of course). What really bothers me is that we already know what Requires(post), Requires(pre) and such mean. So going by that, Requires(hint) or Requires(missingok) would indicate a dependency for the %hint or %missingok scriptlets. Which, uh, they don't. I know that rpm specfile syntax isn't clean by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't see the motivation for taking something which actually made sense and shovelling in a load of turds for no reason. - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
