On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > On Tuesday 28 of October 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:20 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: >>> http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=38&_submit=Show really got fixed? >> >> If not fixed, I need a more precise reproducer. >> >> The problem that I saw before, multiple RPMTAG_DESCRIPTION >> tags ending up in packages using rpm-5.1, I tried (and could not) >> reproduce >> with the case you originally gave me. > > Next time please file proper comment into rpm5.org bug system. >
I tried (see the url), but the @rpm5.org bug system is rather awkward and fragile. What is a proper comment anyways? > Will retest again at some point. > Please do. and if you send me a toy srpm reproducer, then I will wire up into rpm's "make check". You can easily add too, just check in a tests/foo*.srpm, that will automatically be rebuilt and installed, which should exercise obvious flaws. No matter what: RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE needs to Die! Die! Die! A data type that sometimes is a scalar, and sometimes is an array, is no useful data type imho. I know several ways to eliminate RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE with no loss of functionality if I extend arbitrary tag permitted characters. But I cannot make a PLD change for you. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
