Problems with core review

[Christopher Aillon]

Warren Togami wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
>>
>> But I will always resist arbitrary changes which lack technical 
>> justification (or are just plain undesirable); the fact that such 
>> changes are proposed as part of the Review Process does not make them 
>> sacrosanct.
> 
> Regarding RPM_SOURCE_DIR vs. SOURCEn, doesn't the latter make it simply 
> easier to read and maintain?  The former requires you to have file names 
> written in two or more places.
> 
> Sure it isn't against the rules to use the former, but why not make it 
> cleaner and easier to read?

Maybe in packages with like two source files.  In the gecko packages, 
it's sort of a pain.  I have always loathed the numbering myself in 
these packages, not only for source files but also for patch files.  I 
suppose I hadn't realized there was an alternative else I'd have 
probably switched a while ago.