On 17 October 2016 at 10:10, Panu Matilainen <pmati...@laiskiainen.org> wrote:
>> What is the chance to get [1, 2] into the release? I mildly remember,
>> that once I was offered to get this patch into Fedora, but that never
>> materialized and now it is almost a year. I don't think this is
>> controversial change which should make anything break.
>>
>> Thx for considering.
>>
>>
>> Vít
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/27
>> [2]
>>
>> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/89d1dd0a7c63c7497d334e9f240ce7e36ca89434
>
>
> Hmm, that has actually been in Mageia for over a year so it's certainly
> gotten its share of soak-time (so at least it's not breaking anything else)
> and people are probably depending on it in Mageia so it'd be a reasonable
> candidate.

Actually, it's been here at least in Mageia from much more earlier:
http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/rpm/current/SOURCES/rpm-4.6.1-setup-rubygems.patch?view=markup&pathrev=343

I think the original patch went in in October 2010, previously we were
using a separate %gem_unpack macro

But it's not the same implementation as the one that has been merged
in master. Mageia one is:
http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/rpm/current/SOURCES/rpm-4.12.90-setup-rubygems.patch?revision=860276&view=markup

But if it works the same, Mageia will be happy to drop one more patch :-)

See you
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

Reply via email to