On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Toshio wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 13:45, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Toshio wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 12:40, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > > > > the 'Source-tag may not have macros' decision
> > >
> > > Well, if it's not a macro, you may have the situation where someone
> > > changes the version, forgets to change the Source-tag and releases a newer
> > > version with older software. Would the QA person notice that ?
> >
> If it is non mandatory, why are we still discussing this ?
Possibly because someone won't admit when they're wrong? :-)
Could be me, but you'll have to show me how.
Then you clearly have much more time than I have.
> 2] I have many packages that _have_ to change the %setup line,
> 230 of the 622 spec-files which is over 30% (remember perl-packages ?)
Doesn't matter. I took a look at several of your perl spec's.
They do:
%setup -n %{rname}-%{version}
which will get caught by #2 above.
And you said you hadn't seen any ocassions where %setup -n was needed and
I gave you those that did. I understand you wanted to know the number of
packages that have '-n' used and not %{version}. Still 87 do, about 13%.
Although I must say I don't see why that would be of any value in the
discussion.
> 3] I don't rely on QA people as I'd rather automate and
assume a
> QA person has better things to do.
That's fine. But your question was whether the QA person would catch
the problem...
Well, we will not know, would we. I'm just stating it's useless to ask
this from a QA person if you can automate it.
-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com,
http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]