> c) %else if 0%{?rhel} >= 6
d) %else !use_embedded
Treating a text after %else as a part of the else-branch will improve a) and
b), but it will not solve case c) and especially d). That is why I would prefer
the warning in both cases.
Well, c) and d) would depend on context, but most likely the
The pull request is reopened (PR #618 will be closed).
--
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/613#issuecomment-460559995
Reopened #613.
--
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/613#event-2117852085___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
The pull request is closed (returned to #613).
--
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/618#issuecomment-460560615___
Rpm-
Closed #618.
--
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/618#event-2117856891___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
As mentioned in the warn-after-else PR, one of the things that bugs me here is
multiple places to parse the same tokens. Have a function that parses the "line
type", which you can then use in both place, maybe borrow a chapter from the
macro engine builtins work?
The other coding style eyesore
Oh and BTW, a general piece of advise that applies everywhere, including here:
when possible, use data structures instead of code logic.
--
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-managem
Limits allow to apply only range of patches with given parameters.
Useful if something needs to be done between patch sets. Allows applying
of patches with different -pX parameter in one spec file.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-ma
Imagine that the package you are building, contains following binary packages:
* util-linux (depends on libsmartcols.so.1)
* libsmartcols (provides libsmartcols.so.1)
I believe in 99.(9)% of cases you really want to have libsmartcols installed as
a provider and not something else what happen to
cc @wladmis @ldv-alt
--
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/issues/627#issuecomment-460792388___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-
It seems that b780f5a8d636073d67dbcdfa3f8795f878b55218 (from 2007) removed such
generator as not being used which probably happened because it was not ported
to new dependency generators syntax or so.
It would be nice if we could generate dependencies on scriptlets using that
code. No more Requ
I don't think that this should be job of RPM. With koji you can always say what
packages were available at the time of build, do dependency resolution and
voila.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://githu
12 matches
Mail list logo
