Some of code documentation comments are misformed which causes corresponding
doxygen docs not to be generated. I found out about this because I was looking
the the [online
docs](http://ftp.rpm.org/api/4.15.1/group__header.html#ga33376e8850c275b72059fe723a0d3066)
for a function I knew existed bu
Hi,
recently unit tests for `rpkg` tool started failing. I found, that `rpm`
returns a different result than before.
I have simple specfile:
```
Summary: Dummy summary
Name: docpkg
Version: 1.2
Release: 2%{dist}
License: GPL
#Source0:
#Patch0:
Group: Applications/Productivity
BuildRoot: %(mktemp
Well, that's a good point. Reopening and rewording the title to implement a man
page update. Thank you, Pavel!
--
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/963#issueco
Reopened #963.
--
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/963#event-3520900913___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.r
Shouldn't we at least document somewhere what the exit status 11 means then?
Ie why
we are returning that value?
--
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/963#issu
As discussed with @ffesti on IRC today, we'd rather keep this behavior as is,
although a point can be made both ways, i.e. in favor of the exit code 11 with
`--nodeps` (to signal *unchecked* dynamic deps) as well as in favor of a
different exit code (since deps weren't checked per user's request
Closed #963.
--
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/963#event-3520109680___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
That being said, the PR is a nice step in the right direction. It’s just that
its design has limits, and will probably not scale once you start mixing spec
generators with different ideas of where the dynamism should start or end. With
a single section at a single point of the spec generators ar
> %postbuild is misleading and dangerous. You need a dynamic starting point for
> every section that succeeds %post,
More generally, the problem you are attempting to solve, is not the lack or not
of a new rpm section, and the shredding or not of the existing spec file. Those
are all fuzzy wo
