[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Review queue/FESCo after the merge




On 15.11.2007 12:41, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 11/15/2007 10:43 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Hans de Goede (j w r degoede hhs nl) said:
>>>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>>> * Make sure that there are no cases of Requires(pre,post)
>>>> Erm, why isn't the use of those perfectly "legal"
>>> As I understand it, Requires(pre) is OK, Requires(post) is OK,
>>> Requires(pre,post) is not.
>> IIRC that's supposed to work these days (FC >= 6, RHEL >= 5). If not, 
>> file a bug...
> Then we should consider updating our guidelines.  This brings up a good 
> point, too.  If a given package guideline exists to work around bugs 
> like this in the future, the guideline really must reference the bug # 
> so it can be easier to revisit at a future date.

Agreed, albeit I'm not sure if the exact bug # is needed -- the
information "need in FC > foo and RHEL > bar" is the important one. And
maintaining that properly is more important due to EPEL, as we'll still
have to deal with EPEL for EL4 for some years.

CU
knurd


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]