> Would it be possible for this to simply define defaults for %build or
> %install or whatnot which would be used if those sections aren't present in
> the specfile? That way it would be simpler to handle that one package that
> needs a file removed after %make_install without having to
Care to elaborate on "the logic" a little bit in the isTransient() commit
message? I know and you know, but it's a nice opportunity to advance it from
tribal knowledge to written knowledge.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or
For expressions (used with %if and macro %[] and %{expr:...}) we actually just
added something like that a few months ago, eg:
```
[pmatilai︎lumikko-w rpm]$ ./rpmbuild -bp ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/popt.spec
error: bare words are no longer supported, please use "...": a == 1
error:
mlschroe approved this pull request.
--
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/1085#pullrequestreview-365581861___
Merged #1028 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/1028#event-3077462007___
Rpm-maint mailing list
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:
Closed #1018 via #1085.
--
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/1018#event-3077361667___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1085 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/1085#event-3077361636___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks for the review!
--
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/1085#issuecomment-591906197___
Rpm-maint mailing list
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
Ok, extended the commit message.
--
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/1028#issuecomment-591882637___
Rpm-maint
Cool, thanks. Looks good to me now, but GH wont let me approve my own PR. Funny
that :smile:
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Hold your horses. I'm not talking about a revolutionary new format, just a
small evolutionary step to modernize, otherwise it's simply not going to happen.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dependency qualifiers like (pre), (postun) are not documented in RPM itself.
There is a brief but very outdated section in [Maximum
RPM](http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html):
"context marked dependencies".
With `meta` being added now we urgently need proper
14 matches
Mail list logo
