On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 04:30:26PM +0100, Jos Vos wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:18:03AM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > > Yes, I'm sure. NoSource: ain't exactly a high priority for OSS, > > at odds with many rpm and Red Hat goals, so I've never bothered to > > change a thing with NoSource: as originally implemented. > > Sorry, but I found evidence of the opposite. In August 1998 I made > a package where I put in the spec file: > > NoSource: 1, 2, 3 > In August, 1998, I had been working on rpm for Red Hat for 5 months. It is highly unlikely that you were using any bits I built, or saw any changes that I made, to rpm in 8/98. I'm not responsible for "stuff" I did not do. > And this really worked, as I just compared the src.rpm and nosrc.rpm > files that I both saved and the 3 source files are really not included! > It is an RPM v3 package, according to "file". > > For anyone wondering what package this was: it was "xanim" where I > made a private version with these 3 binary files included: > > Source1: ftp://xanim.va.pubnix.com/modules/xa1.0_cyuv_linuxELF.o.Z > Source2: ftp://xanim.va.pubnix.com/modules/xa2.0_cvid_linuxELF.o.Z > Source3: ftp://xanim.va.pubnix.com/modules/xa2.0_iv32_linuxELF.o.Z > > ;-) Again, the patch is trivial. Why not send a patch rather than rehashing 5.5 year old issues? 73 de Jeff -- Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ jbj@xxxxxxxxxx (jbj@xxxxxxx) Chapel Hill, NC _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
