On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 18:27, Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com> wrote: > > On May 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Robert Xu wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> So now that it's clarified that RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK works... (I can >> throw out this patch! >> https://github.com/devzero2000/RPM/commit/21ee982d1655c3d8528ed4a32e821aec775ebe14) >> > > Yes you shouldn't need that patch with @rpm5.org. > >> So... now how could I revise these two patches? >> https://github.com/devzero2000/RPM/commit/2a1443ea095ab3cb87fb593f459f299365e7919c > > This patch shouldn't hurt nor help much (its specific to --queryformat). > > The basic structure of --singleSprintf isn't radically different. Punt > this one to me if you want and I'll figger out how/where the patch > should be merged. At a first approximation you can likely run > without the patch (but that's just a guess based on where --qf > tends to be used).
I will assume for now that this isn't needed. When it comes to actual testing, we'll see. > > >> https://github.com/devzero2000/RPM/commit/225db4c7033e014f826fc50ab997f596882c3312 > > This patch is needed if you want to build packages like SuSE > does, with "weak dependencies" in explicit tag data. I can carry > this @rpm5.org under > #ifdef RPM_VENDOR_OPENSUSE > if there is interest. Please do. :) > > That's where all of the above has been for 4+ years (7+ years if you go back > to when RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK was originally proposed, and "weak dependencies" > were mostly implemented a few months later). Its kinda hard to > get excited about 7 year old implementations that haven't ever really > been used or deployed widely (yes SuSE has, noone else I'm aware of). True. For me, I can see usefulness in it, but for most other stuff, it's just... not really useful. It's like a comps.xml file in a spec file (if you get what I mean). > > hth > > 73 de Jeff -- later, Robert Xu ______________________________________________________________________ RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
