On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 11:16 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 10:13 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "PM" == Panu Matilainen
<pmatilai(a)laiskiainen.org> writes:
>
> PM> Rpm doesn't support that either as of 4.4.2.x, but the parsing of
> PM> Requires(foo) attributes is somewhat broken so it doesn't report
> PM> the error as such in all cases (yes, it's a bug of course).
>
> What really bothers me is that we already know what Requires(post),
> Requires(pre) and such mean. So going by that, Requires(hint) or
> Requires(missingok) would indicate a dependency for the %hint or
> %missingok scriptlets. Which, uh, they don't.
>
> I know that rpm specfile syntax isn't clean by any stretch of the
> imagination, but I can't see the motivation for taking something which
> actually made sense and shovelling in a load of turds for no reason.
+!
or +1, even. you know, without the sticky shift key :/
-sv