[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Discussion: spec tag order and side-effects (#1161)

[nim-nim]

@pmatilai I’m just stating facts, some of the broken specs were not even written before april of this year, so it is 100% impossible they passed using an older rpm version (and their main build box runs rawhide, not even F32 beta).

I gave you concrete, actual production Fedora spec files in the rhbz bug. Just find an order (the same in both 2 specs, after rpmspec -p expansion to make sure it is the actual same order) that rpm upstream is ready to support. and I’ll apply the result in my specs, my macros and the Fedora packaging guidelines.

I’m 100% uninterested in “you’re doing things wrong” messages that can not be translated into operational guidelines.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1161#issuecomment-610340943
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20200407/46b3f127/attachment.html>