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

Re: ambiguity in the guidelines



On 7/5/06, seth vidal <skvidal 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?


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