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

Re: ambiguity in the guidelines

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 20:49 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 04:50:09PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > If it's worth anything at all, as a sysadmin, I find having (e:)v-r
> > > information in the changelog to be incredibly useful.
> > why? the date tells me more b/c at least that has _something_ to do with
> > the versions, etc.
> I often have to look for "in what version of the package was bug X or
> problem Y addressed?" Knowing it was fixed in May 2005 is *kinda* helpful,
> but knowing that it was fixed in a certain version is usually exactly what I
> need to know.
> I agree that it's less than elegant to put this data in the packager name
> field, but given that anything else would require patching RPM, backporting
> that patch to every distro, and changing every package, I'm okay with it.

No - we need to fix rpm in fedora and that's all that matters we're more
or less maintaining a fork of rpm in fedora anyway - let's just DO IT
and be done.

it's not like upstream rpm has any meaning anymore, anyway.


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