Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473452 --- Comment #7 from Till Maas <[email protected]> 2008-12-11 15:29:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Honestly I don't see why there's any issue to begin with. In the case of > these > package, I suppose you could just hardcode the "s/y/" bit as they should all > be > the same. In general we don't really want to deter packagers from making use > of macros in Source: URLs, and it would be pointless to try and make some list > of macros which are acceptable there. The only macros I do not really like in Source0, are the ones that execute programs, e.g. %(rm -rf / &>/dev/null; echo http://www.example.com/foo.tar.gz). But it is not that important to me, since I now know, that this might happen, I will be more careful with using spectool. Btw. one odd thing for me in this spec is: Obsoletes: system-config-services < 0.99.29 Requires: system-config-services >= 0.99.29 Afaik the Obsoletes does not make sense here, because thanks to the Requires, old packages will be obsoleted by the newer system-config-services package automatically. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
