On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 11:16 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 10:13 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "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. > > +! > or +1, even. you know, without the sticky shift key :/ -sv -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
