@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -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 note that showing how complicated the syntax actually is was my original
> motivation. If you look at the issue I refer to in the PR description, the
> original need is to have a reference for spec file parser writers. But fair
> enough, trying to inject enough to serve as a reference for that need into
> this page that is intended for spec file writers was a bad idea.
I see, however the primary audience of this document is spec writers, not spec
*parser* writers, so it should definitely focus on the former, as you noted.
> I also added an explicit recommendation to avoid explicit numbering for
> Patches, based on #3110 and [this Fedora devel
> thread](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/HMKCIWMM3CM2HBNR25OIMMFBWPCLCIVC/#ONVXIUGX3PO44ODYXBINY3KJJDOIRJMB).
> If that is not actually rpm's recommendation, that sentence can be just
> removed.
Indeed, this should be the recommended approach, good catch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3405#discussion_r1913446048
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3405/review/2547130...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
