This is got fixed by the way of #2205 in #2730.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1088#issuecomment-1786689611
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #1088 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1088#event-10816947347
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Yep, but *that* is far easier said than done. We've been laying the foundations
for that for a while now, see #2205 and various linked stuff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1088#issuecomment-1404879688
You are
Of course I understand that it is not a goal, I wanted to say that another
implementation of rpm grammar behaves differently and at the same time I do not
understand why it should behave like rpm4 does.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
Rpm5 compatibility is not a goal, so whether something works there or not isn't
relevant generally.
One could consider this a bug on its own merits though.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
