Re: [PATCH 1/2] rpm.eclass: switch order of rpm and rpm2targz

Eli Schwartz <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.gentoo.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 3/30/26 3:24 PM, Sam James wrote:
> Nowa Ammerlaan <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> Since app-arch/rpm is the official implementation prefer using that
>> if it is installed. We keep app-arch/rpm2targz as the default in the
>> dependencies since it is more lightweight.
> 
> I think it looks like a bug for the two to be inconsistent and someone
> will end up correcting it in future. It should have a comment or better
> yet, just make the two match, at least for now (so put rpm first in the
> dep too).


In IRC we discussed that the deps ordering is intentional and should not
change. I asked whether anyone had opinions on changing the if/else
order vs an eclass variable to require "real rpm", but you never
responded, and nowa only said "Though I can see how a dedicated switch
is esthetically cleaner" which didn't feel to me like a firm stance, so
I've still been waiting...

-- 
Eli Schwartz
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 236 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wnsEABYIACMWIQTnFNnmK0TPZHnXm3qEp9ErcA0vVwUCacsZ3wUDAAAAAAAKCRCEp9ErcA0vV1xG
AQC6PQRpclZLDzorY+ckq+8/9guDz7mPstgpS4x7feteMgEA+2fM+UA5x4jVnr5lhjS4HXCMQYJ4
Ajo30I8LZrF03AE=
=u7ub
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.