Packaging Committee Meeting Summary (2010-02-03)
opensource at till.name
Sat Feb 6 14:36:47 UTC 2010
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:14:22AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> By the way, the whole concept of this kind of macros has been frowned upon
> and FESCo already recommended that the MinGW packagers simply paste their
> debuginfo logic directly into the specfiles instead of using this kind of
> macros. I guess the same recommendation can be given to the font packagers.
Why is code duplication considered good practice here, while it is
considered to be bad practice everywhere else, e.g. in the no duplicate
system libraries guidelines?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100206/b39bd1a4/attachment.bin
More information about the devel