@dmnks requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -472,6 +481,18 @@ software).
### Sub-sections
+#### `%sourcelist`
+
+List of sources, one per row. Handled like unnumbered Source tags. For
I'd use "line" instead of "row" here, just to be consistent with the rest of
the file.
> @@ -472,6 +481,18 @@ software).
### Sub-sections
+#### `%sourcelist`
+
+List of sources, one per row. Handled like unnumbered Source tags. For
+clarity, mixing Source tags and `%sourcelist` in one specfile is not
+recommended.
+
+#### `%patchlist`
+
+List of patches, one per row. Handled like unnumbered Patch tags. For
Same as above.
> @@ -170,17 +170,26 @@ Short (< 70 characters) summary of the package.
Used to declare source(s) used to build the package. All sources will
will be packaged into source rpms.
-Arbitrary number of sources may be declared, for example:
+Arbitrary number of sources may be declared. A numbered source is
I think we should keep the numbered syntax as the recommended, happy-path style
here, and only mention the fact that unnumbered declarations are also possible
in a separate paragraph below the examples.
I also don't like mixing the numbered and unnumbered styles in the examples. It
makes the syntax look more complicated than it really is.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3405#pullrequestreview-2426509116
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3405/review/2426509...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
