(note that reference-file-by-tag, which I did with 2nd iteration, is "perma"
enough in 99.99% cases)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Thanks for the link! (permalink for posterity:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/blob/7fb5d83d1872fead362057d014f431a26ffab6e9/dnf/base.py#L503-L515
)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Good point, I think updating this is a prereq:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/blob/master/dnf/base.py#L503-L515
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Is there a matching dnf options, like `--setopt=tsflags=noartifacts,nodocs`?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1274 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/1274#event-3472180157___
Rpm-maint mailing list
1. as mentioned at that bug, not sure if it's fortunate to mention something
(`build-id` concept) that cannot be properly referenced, e.g. to
`rpmbuild(8)`
(closest is `tests/rpmbuild.at`: `build-id files should link to the .debug
files`),
perhaps more generic explanation would suffice,
Like docs, configs etc, excluding artifacts from installation might
sometimes be desireable to eg save space. Inspired by
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848199
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1274
