Closed #236.
--
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/236#event-1469344602___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Yeah, Group already exists and yet nobody these days sees it as serving
anything useful, so adding another classifier tag doesn't seem that productive.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I've made a prototype of what I had in mind: https://pagure.io/lamp and it is
just a normal package, in the end. It probably will be able to pass the Fedora
standard package review process so the Class attribute is probably not needed.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
@clime Also, you could just reuse the `Group:` tag for this purpose. I'm not
sure why you need new metadata tags...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Some kind of this has been discussed in #107.. Basically having `Class` or how
you name does not make sense for RPM until it should be handling it differently
(which doesn't make sense for RPM from simple POV).. In theory it could start
changing RPM behaviour like stop adding debuginfo packages
Why not to add `Provides: rpm(class) = container`?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Hello,
right now, spec files do not have any 'type' identifier, which means, they all
need to be treated the same way in a distribution. If they contained a class
specifier, there could be two (or more) types of packages, each with a
different set of requirements given to them by a
