On 10/25/2017 06:28 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 10/25/2017 02:06 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 12:49 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:46 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
So I'm wondering how to make this
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 10/25/2017 02:06 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 12:49 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:46 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> So I'm wondering how to make this less ugly.
The
On 10/25/2017 02:06 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 12:49 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:46 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
So I'm wondering how to make this less ugly.
The first thing that comes to mind is adding a %hidden virtual
attribute
and using it on b
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 12:49 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:46 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> So I'm wondering how to make this less ugly.
> >
> > The first thing that comes to mind is adding a %hidden virtual
> > attribute
> > and using it on build-ids (which are in a hid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 13:46 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> I've only now begun to encounter packages with the build-id links in
> the
> packages themselves. In a package with just a couple of binaries
> it's
> seemed like non-issue, but yesterday
I've only now begun to encounter packages with the build-id links in the
packages themselves. In a package with just a couple of binaries it's
seemed like non-issue, but yesterday I happened to encounter this:
[pmatilai@sopuli x86_64]$ rpm -qpl can-utils-20170830git-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
/usr/bin/a
