Thanks for the patch!
--
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/91#issuecomment-247305318___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #91.
--
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/91#event-790579879___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Sure, multiple is more correct. I'm not hung about the exact message, just
wanted to point out you can easily get by with one-liner change for this.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
You can probably use ``` for diffs.
Is the 'second' correct? I way about to use `multiple` because the warning can
occur several time for each (sub)package.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
pmatilai requested changes on this pull request.
Why not just:
@@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ int parseFiles(rpmSpec spec)
* Warn but preserve behavior, except for leaking memory.
*/
if (pkg->fileList != NULL) {
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("line %d: second %%files\n"), spec->lineNum);
+
