Neil Schemenauer <nas@arctrix.com>: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 05:56:38PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@beopen.com>: > > > Can you compare this approach to using a hand-crafted .spec file for > > > the RPMs? It took a little while to figure out how to generate the > > > .spec, but now that it has been created it does not seem hard to > > > maintain. > > Actually, the point of my approach is *not* to hand-craft the spec file. > > Okay, but we already have the spec file. Why is your approach > better? Is your script that generates the the spec easier to > maintain then the spec file itself? Is it just as flexible? If > so then Red Hat screwed up designing RPM. I can see the utility > of such as script but I don't see how it helps in this situation. The main thing a specfile generator can accomplish is to automate the generation of the file list so that (for example) when we add a new library module the specfile doesn't have to be hand-edited. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4