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

Re: Noarch subpackage problem



Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:53 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Anytime you add things that the packager has to understand and has to do
>> you add a step where things can be forgotten or misapplied.  Right now,
>> we have the ability to start with a small set of files that are
>> allowable in noarch subpackages and add more as we figure out heuristics
>> to allow things that we are pretty certain are correct.  (%doc, *.py,
>> etc).  Once this is out there for a while, the only thing we can do is
>> impose additional burden on reviewers and packagers as it's much harder
>> to take back a feature than it is to parcel it out a little at a time.
> 
> 
> Perhaps these thoughts should have been brought up when this feature hit
> RPM and when it was talked about MONTHS ago, rather than waiting until
> after we've done all the work to make it live and in use.
> 
I agree, that would have been good.  But I was under the mistaken
impression that we were going to be doing a lot more checking of the
built files than became apparent today.

-Toshio


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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