On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Monday 08 September 2008, Axel Thimm wrote:
We certainly can't afford to lose LSB compliance (I didn't knew
Groups: was referenced there), so indeed we need to step down a
bit.
Regarding the LSB, I don't know whether the format of packages produced by rpm
in current Fedora releases is LSB compliant even without any Group tag
changes. If it is, I suppose making Group optional in specfiles does not
necessarily mean losing LSB compliance, rpmbuild could just insert some fixed
string as its value in the package headers it produces if the tag is not
present in a specfile.
Nod. Rpm will now slam in "Unspecified" into group tag if spec doesn't
specify it (this isn't in Fedora yet, I'm waiting for the freeze to be
over for the next rebase).
As for LSB compliance generally, we're about as non-compliant as we've
always been since rpm 4.0.
- Panu -
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
