On 05/26/2016 12:41 PM, Pierre-Antoine Grégoire wrote:
> Sorry to bring this up again, but it is common practice to refer to
> (sub-package) versions (statically, not using a macro) in changelog entries.
> So are you saying this should be avoided and that versions of Sub-packages
> should always matche versions of main package?
Different versions (ditto for release and epoch) between sub-packages
are best avoided because they're not properly supported in rpm, you'll
run into all sorts of strange quirks and artifacts with them.
> Also, same bug declaration (http://rpm.org/ticket/27) seems to mention that
> there should not be multiple description macros, which once again seems quite
> weird.
> I could hear that description are only spec-level things, though in the end
> they are added to packages, and it feels right that each package has a
> distinct description, as they are not purposed to install the same thing.
You're misunderstanding the bug. Obviously there can be multiple
%description sections in a spec due to sub-packages, the bug is about
rpm not complaining about multiple %descriptions for a given (sub-)package.
- Panu -
>
> ---
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/fe8c82549aee176524e0e94786596683cd7a402d#commitcomment-17627139
>
---
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/commit/fe8c82549aee176524e0e94786596683cd7a402d#commitcomment-17627537_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
