ambiguity in the guidelines
chris.stone at gmail.com
Thu Jul 6 02:21:45 UTC 2006
On 7/5/06, seth vidal <skvidal at linux.duke.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 18:58 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > We understand your point that it is redundant information, but I think
> > the better solution is to provide a source patch to fix rpm, or file a
> > bug against rpm and place the extra information in the changelog in
> > the meantime.
> I never said it was redundant info. I said it was in the wrong place, in
> an overloaded field.
So are you suggesting that the changelog section be broken up into
different fields? If it is just a field name you are concerned about
you could break the changelog line into seperate fields and call each
field by a different name.
Do you agree that historical release information is useful to have
available from an rpm query command?
More information about the Fedora-maintainers