Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: better warning for non-unique %files section (#91)
Thanks for the patch! -- 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/91#issuecomment-247305318___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: better warning for non-unique %files section (#91)
Merged #91. -- 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/91#event-790579879___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: better warning for non-unique %files section (#91)
Sure, multiple is more correct. I'm not hung about the exact message, just wanted to point out you can easily get by with one-liner change for this. -- 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/91#issuecomment-247292563___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: better warning for non-unique %files section (#91)
You can probably use ``` for diffs. Is the 'second' correct? I way about to use `multiple` because the warning can occur several time for each (sub)package. -- 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/91#issuecomment-247291245___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: better warning for non-unique %files section (#91)
pmatilai requested changes on this pull request.
Why not just:
@@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ int parseFiles(rpmSpec spec)
* Warn but preserve behavior, except for leaking memory.
*/
if (pkg->fileList != NULL) {
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("line %d: second %%files\n"), spec->lineNum);
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("line %d: second %%files for package %s\n"),
+ spec->lineNum, rpmstrPoolStr(pkg->pool, pkg->name));
pkg->fileList = argvFree(pkg->fileList);
}
--
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/91#pullrequestreview-130436___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
