On 25/08/2011 08:50, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
Err... Sorry I didn't meant to embarrass you, I was just defending against
the unfair jbj comparison
The comparison was only about the ugly '@mdv' usage, and was perfectly
fair :)
--
BOFH excuse #383:
Your processor has taken a ride to Heaven's Gat
Le jeudi 25 août 2011 à 08:50 +0200, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
> On 24 August 2011 23:40, Michael Scherer wrote:
> >> >> And then a mass update commit like the ones I did before enforcing
> >> >> new rpmlint checks back @mdv
> >> >
> >> > Argh, jbj-speak...
> >>
> >> err, vaporware^h^h^h^hsays !=
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:50:36AM +0200, Thierry wrote in
:
On 24 August 2011 23:40, Michael Scherer wrote:
that's very nice, I just do send long emails with my super power so
people do not read it fully and enable the check, and then say "it was
decided and no one complained, so we enabled i
On 24 August 2011 23:40, Michael Scherer wrote:
>> >> And then a mass update commit like the ones I did before enforcing
>> >> new rpmlint checks back @mdv
>> >
>> > Argh, jbj-speak...
>>
>> err, vaporware^h^h^h^hsays != say'n do
>>
>> Unlike jbj, I did fix all spec files before I enabled new rpml
Le mercredi 24 août 2011 à 17:27 +0200, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
> On 23 August 2011 23:48, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> >> And then a mass update commit like the ones I did before enforcing
> >> new rpmlint checks back @mdv
> >
> > Argh, jbj-speak...
>
> err, vaporware^h^h^h^hsays != say'n do
>
>
On 23 August 2011 23:48, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
>> And then a mass update commit like the ones I did before enforcing
>> new rpmlint checks back @mdv
>
> Argh, jbj-speak...
err, vaporware^h^h^h^hsays != say'n do
Unlike jbj, I did fix all spec files before I enabled new rpmling
checks as blocker
Le mardi 23 août 2011 à 17:22 +0200, Marja van Waes a écrit :
> Op 23-08-11 16:43, Michael Scherer schreef:
>
> >
> > So when the macro do something more, yes we need to use it.
> > If not, and if we want to follow others distribution, we should take a
> > look at their policy
> >
> > I found the
On 23/08/2011 17:34, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
And then a mass update commit like the ones I did before enforcing
new rpmlint checks back @mdv
Argh, jbj-speak...
--
BOFH excuse #4:
static from nylon underwear
On 23 August 2011 16:43, Michael Scherer wrote:
> I found the one of Fedora on
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros , and
> basically, they say "use rm rather than %{_rm}".
And then a mass update commit like the ones I did before enforcing
new rpmlint checks back @mdv
Op 23-08-11 16:43, Michael Scherer schreef:
So when the macro do something more, yes we need to use it.
If not, and if we want to follow others distribution, we should take a
look at their policy
I found the one of Fedora on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros , and
basic
Le mardi 23 août 2011 à 16:23 +0200, grenoya a écrit :
> Le 23/08/11 15:44, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
> > On 21 August 2011 15:44, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> >> I do have to wonder why those macros are used... it seems quite trivial
> >> to use the actual commands directly and that ultimately increase
Le 23/08/11 15:44, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
On 21 August 2011 15:44, Colin Guthrie wrote:
I do have to wonder why those macros are used... it seems quite trivial
to use the actual commands directly and that ultimately increases
portability (which maybe isn't a major concern, but all the same)
On 21 August 2011 15:44, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> I do have to wonder why those macros are used... it seems quite trivial
> to use the actual commands directly and that ultimately increases
> portability (which maybe isn't a major concern, but all the same)
>
> What are the general thoughts on this?
Colin Guthrie a écrit :
'Twas brillig, and Bertaux Xavier at 20/08/11 14:42 did gyre and gimble:
Le 20/08/2011 15:34, D.Morgan a écrit :
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
Revision 134638 Author shadow95 Date 2011-08-20 15:22:52 +0200 (Sat, 20 Aug
2011)
Log Message
- clean spec
Modifi
'Twas brillig, and Bertaux Xavier at 20/08/11 14:42 did gyre and gimble:
> Le 20/08/2011 15:34, D.Morgan a écrit :
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
>>> Revision 134638 Author shadow95 Date 2011-08-20 15:22:52 +0200 (Sat, 20 Aug
>>> 2011)
>>>
>>> Log Message
>>>
>>> - clean spec
>>>
>>>
Le 20/08/2011 15:34, D.Morgan a écrit :
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
>> Revision 134638 Author shadow95 Date 2011-08-20 15:22:52 +0200 (Sat, 20 Aug
>> 2011)
>>
>> Log Message
>>
>> - clean spec
>>
>> Modified Paths
>>
>
> Why do you clean by removing rpm macros ? what was wrong with
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM, wrote:
> Revision 134638 Author shadow95 Date 2011-08-20 15:22:52 +0200 (Sat, 20 Aug
> 2011)
>
> Log Message
>
> - clean spec
>
> Modified Paths
>
> cauldron/gcstar/current/SPECS/gcstar.spec
>
> Modified: cauldron/gcstar/current/SPECS/gcstar.spec
> ===
17 matches
Mail list logo
