From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH for-xen-4.5] tools/mkrpm: improve version.release handling Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:32:22 +0000 Message-ID: <545791F6.2080809@eu.citrix.com> References: <1412694063-29616-1-git-send-email-olaf@aepfle.de> <20141103142436.GA23458@aepfle.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141103142436.GA23458@aepfle.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Olaf Hering Cc: Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/03/2014 02:24 PM, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, George Dunlap wrote: > >> How difficult would it be to have this be something sensible like, >> "changesets since last tag"? > Very difficult, because one does changes without commit, runs 'make > rpmball' and expects that rpm -Fvh *.rpm continues to work. Right. Personally, I think trying to make "rpm -Fvh" work for all the use cases a developer might want is more hassle than it's worth; as I said, I have scripts that just do "rpm -e" in such cases. I wouldn't oppose it, but I don't really support it either. Ian / Ian / Wei, any thoughts? -George