On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 12:04 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
On 7/25/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)iki.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 18:26 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > Also Ville insists on their being a %build section for an unknown
> > reason.
>
> I did provide a reason, you seem to choose to ignore it.
Well you keep referencing a bug number with your argument and the
comments made in the bug you refer to seem to suggest my point of view
rather than yours. Basically the bug reporter simply did not know
what he was doing. So this bug that you refer to basically
invalidates your claim that there is a problem with not adding %build.
So you provide some reason, then invalidate this reason with a bug
number and therefore you provide an unknown or null or void or
canceled out reason. Kind of like when matter collides with
anti-matter...
Bug#192422 is showing that specs without %build can trigger unexpected
behaviour. The bug reporter did know what he was doing, he just didn't
know that rpm had a bug in it that prevented it from working as
expected.
So it's better to anticipate that there might be other unexpected things
when shipping without %build (either there now or added in the future
when the rpm maintainer decides: debuginfos do it this way, I might as
well make feature X do it that way as well) rather than letting
everything work for the trivial cases we're dealing with now and then
suddenly expose another bug somewhere down the road.
-Toshio