But that only shows that @pmatilai's point was correct: If you need to do
something dynamically in the build scriptlets, you need to do it with the shell.
That bit of the spec does things via the shell. So, yes, it's clearly doable
in some form: with the shell.
I don't understand how what
I though this might show it, but to me it looks like it works as expected;
using either three or four percent signs seems correct. (That's kind of a fun
result on its own, though.) Maybe your situation is more complicated or more
nesting is required or something. That's why it's really
It would be far more useful if you could simply provide a few short specfiles
which illustrate the problem you are having. I don't think you can reasonably
expect the upstream RPM developers (or anyone else, really) to dig through that
copr URL to try and figure out what in there might
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontpackages/blob/master/f/fontpackages.spec#_84
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> whoever wrote the linked bit of spec
Err, what exactly are you referring to?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #575 into master.
--
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/575#event-1908990455___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #502 via #575.
--
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/issues/502#event-1908990458___
Rpm-maint mailing list
> Dunno why dependency generators would need summary
Well, who knows what they would be doing. Should I basically do same for EVR
stuff or you would prefer doing it in some other way?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
Dunno why dependency generators would need summary, but epoch, version +
release should be useful.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Note that I do plan utilizing the rest of your cleanup + modernization work
too, as time permits. Looking at my comment from yesterday, it probably wasn't
at all clear from that, sorry.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
Nod. Makes me think that perhaps we should default to macro tracing on when
building packages, at least in non-quiet mode.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
11 matches
Mail list logo
