Am Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:53:04 +0100 schrieb todd rme <toddrme2...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Detlef Reichelt > <det...@die-mafia.de> wrote: > > Am Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:36:51 +0100 > > schrieb Christian <ch...@computersalat.de>: > > > >> > 1140_libmms > >> > > >> > Build libmms up to 1140, 1210 and later have libmms in oss. > >> why does libmms need to have such "magic" names ? > > > > It is easier to see why we build libmms: We need it for <= 1140 > > If we don't build for 11.4 anymore, it is easy to delete old > > unneeded packages, because we can delete all 1140_*... ;) > > > > It could help to have PMOBS more cleaner. > > But if we disable building for anything after 11.4, wouldn't it > already be obvious it isn't needed anymore? When an opemsuse distro > is removed, just go through and delete all packages that are disabled > for all remaining repos. The naming style is not realy important, but it is easy to do an "osc rm 1140_*". Mostly we forget to check pmobs for old files, nobody cares about. But with a name like $DIST_$NAME for a package which is obsolete at some point, it is like a big yellow post-it: "You can kick me now!" ;) Detlef _______________________________________________ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
