pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + spec->lineNum, name, poptStrerror(rc));
+ goto exit;
+ }
+
+ optCon = poptGetContext(NULL, argc, argv, optionsTable, 0);
+ while ((arg = poptGetNextOpt(optCon)) > 0) {
+
+ char * filename = poptGetOptArg(optCon);
+ if (!filename) {
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR,
+ _("line %d: \"%%%s -f\" requires an argument.\n"),
+ spec->lineNum, name);
+ goto exit;
+ }
+
+ addSource(spec, 0, filename, RPMTAG_SOURCE);
Mm. This is out of line with our -f usage elsewhere: we don't ask questions
about the file origin external sources are pulled in, whether that's %include'd
or pulled via -f from in scriptlet, files manifest or otherwise. Much less make
them our own.
I can see a use-case for at least %patchlist -f (not so sure about %sourcelist
-f), but these external entities are problematic in general as they break the
standalone expectations that people have on specs. %include is notoriously
nasty, so the question is do we really want more of that?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1043#pullrequestreview-358760663_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
