Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Introduction of "rpms.lock.yaml" file (Discussion #2908)
You're the one proposing the format change. How do you think the possibility of having different kinds of packages under same repo should be handled? Should it be declared "unsupported"? (I'm fine with that.) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2908#discussioncomment-8490548 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Introduction of "rpms.lock.yaml" file (Discussion #2908)
I did not say it's a problem, I just wanted to point out an interesting edge case that happens to be solved by the format already. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2908#discussioncomment-8467990 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Introduction of "rpms.lock.yaml" file (Discussion #2908)
The `type` attribute is an interesting idea. If you had a repo that mixes both types of files, you would need to list it twice (each time with different type), but nothing about the format prevents that. Should there be a separate type for debuginfo though? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2908#discussioncomment-8466620 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %bcond macro for defining build conditionals (#1520)
@lubomir commented on this pull request.
> ## Check whether an option is enabled or disabled
-To define `BuildRequires` depending on the command-line switch, you can use the
-`%{with foo}` macro:
+To make parts of the spec file conditional depending on the command-line
+switch, you can use the `%{with foo}` macro or its counterpart,
+`%{wthout foo}`:
Typo: wthout → without
--
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/1520#pullrequestreview-579214502___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
