-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 07 May 2004 14:35, Michael Jennings wrote: > That's your right. However, and no offense is intended here, but you > are speaking from a standpoint of lack of relevant experience. I can > cite examples of when at least -bs is very useful and does not > jeopardize package quality or integrity. So you arguing to the > contrary is akin to claiming that a piece of software is 100% secure. > Just because you haven't found the vulnerability in the software (or > usefulness in the feature, as it were) doesn't mean it's not there. :) I can second that -bs is extremely usefull. I use -bs to generate a source rpm from where I fiddle w/ rpms. I then submit this source rpm to my build system to build it out for whatever releases/versions I need. W/out being able to -bs, I'd have to build the binary twice as many times, which can take a long time. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAnQnZ4v2HLvE71NURAtneAJ9r67EoqPOlvU13NRdlrIYkCwGzmgCdHmlN mgVxW7ahC8kF+DwNWSDCyTk= =r6h0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
