On Friday, 12 October 2007, at 16:47:40 (-0700), Philip Prindeville wrote: > Well, in this case, "more likely to be mistyped or having a missing > curly brace" is the metric of undesirability. ;-) Not necessarily when illustrating a concept. :-) > I'm open to suggestions of a better way. Don't. Let the build fail if something is poorly configured. > > You'll learn over time whose advice to listen to and whose to ignore. > > You may have chosen poorly. :-) > > Well, as the project owner, he pretty much gets the final word. Upstream authors who understand and are good at packaging are the exception, not the rule. But for your package, you have final say. For upstream packages, it's usually best to have soft build dependencies for all the extras and make sure that the spec file is written in such a way as to build properly in as many cases as possible (i.e., with or without the extra fluff). Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <mej@xxxxxxxxx> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Love?! What does *love* have to do with *marriage*?!" -- Peter Jurasik (Ambassador Londo Mollari), "Babylon Five" _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
