On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:26 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 12:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:41 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>>> Let's file it under hear-say then and move on.
>>> No comment
>>> c.f. below and note the output of the "echos".
>> I think it's safe to just say this is an example of bad rpm practice.
>> If you really want/need two different sources and versions, package them
> ... you are ignoring the fact that there exist cases where this is
Seriously, it's bad practice, don't do it. But don't mind me, go ahead
and do it, if it's so "impossible" to do otherwise...
Check out any one tree style built GCC+newlib rpm,
check out autogen + libopts (currently under review).
complain when it doesn't work.
Bummer, a tool (here: rpm) isn't broken,
just because it doesn't fail on
the 90% of trivial cases it is being used by, but fails on the remaining
10% of complex cases?