If then Mandriva wishes to change the behavior that to me seems intentional with a patch, them i'am not in the condition for verifying the goodness of the same one. My point was an other. Sorry if the observation were not pertinent to the original questions.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:49 PM, devzero2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pardon, I have been too much synthetic: english is't my first language. > > Then,I do not share the patch proposed in stable branch (rpm 4.4.6 and 5). > > The motivations are the same ones expressed in several mail on the > argument in the past years, and I believe in the same reasons. > > In particular, to my opinion, to impose in categorical way that the > produced RPM do not depend on directory orphaned would obtain the same ones > overal benefits in term of RPM QA that it has had "fascist check" in phase > of build, almost for me: ok, is not a corrected comparison, but it renders > the idea. Moreover, the system manegiability would be better if all the > system components are expressed as package dependency. > > > Moreover the problem, from what I know, is famous from years, leading to > the production of instruments as > http://enrico-scholz.de/rpmDirectoryCheck/INFO: but i think that it is > better that the problem is solved by rpm itself, > > I hope of having express better my thought, Wrong that is, on the > argument. > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 4:34 AM, Jeff Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:35 AM, devzero2000 wrote: > > > > Perhaps this reference could answer to your question > > > > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-April/000961.html > > > > > > Or perhaps not. > > > > I wrote the cited reference, and I wrote the implementation. > > > > But I have no idea what connection you are making between a request for > > a patch review (presumably the question) and an out-of-context random > > citation > > (presumably what you see as an answer) other than trolling provocation. > > > > What is your point? Do you like the patch? Do you think the reasoning > > behind the change is flawed? Inquiring minds want to know ... > > > > 73 de Jeff > > > >
