On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:48:41PM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote: > > It's not pedantry; it's the *difference*. > Except that there isn't any difference. You're confusing difference in the code with actual difference. Clearly, there _is_ a difference, or else the original poster wouldn't have had a complaint to begin with. > > The Copyright tag is deprecated and should _replaced_ by the License > > tag. > According to whom? Neither of these refer to it as deprecated: > http://rpm-devel.colug.net/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-tags.html#S3-RPM-INSIDE-LICENSE-TAG > http://rpm-devel.colug.net/max-rpm/s1-rpm-specref-preamble.html#S3-RPM-SPECREF-LICENSE The Red Hat RPM Guide. <http://www.pconline.com/~erc/rpm.htm>, check out page 168. Also, the Fedora Extras packaging guide: <http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackagingHints#tags> Maximum RPM, which you refer to, was never a great book when it was new. And despite some updating, it's still not that great. I guess this is one example. > To quote an RPM developer (name withheld to protect the guilty): ;-) > "It's the same bleeping tag in the header; who cares?" And indeed, that is the case from the point of view of RPM itself. Likewise, you can put whatever you want in the %build and %install sections. You can not use a buildroot if you want. You can name your Mozilla 1.7.3 package "fleebnork-2.15b.rc6.12.3.141-0.0.0.0-noarch.rpm" if you want. RPM won't care. But that doesn't mean that you should. :) -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
