diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'kittystore/test/testdata/pipermail_nextpart.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | kittystore/test/testdata/pipermail_nextpart.txt | 30 |
1 files changed, 30 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/kittystore/test/testdata/pipermail_nextpart.txt b/kittystore/test/testdata/pipermail_nextpart.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a63c65d --- /dev/null +++ b/kittystore/test/testdata/pipermail_nextpart.txt @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +From vondruch at redhat.com Tue Jul 10 11:29:44 2012 +From: vondruch at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?V=EDt_Ondruch?=) +Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:29:44 +0200 +Subject: [Fedora-packaging] RPM macros +Message-ID: <4FFC1228.3060409@redhat.com> + +Hi, + +I noticed that in revised haskell guidelines [1], there is mentioned the +ghc-rpm-macros package, which provides macros.ghc file, which in turns +provides some useful macros for packaging of Haskell packages. In Ruby, +we provide similar macro files in ruby-devel and rubygems-devel +subpackages respectively. Perl has their macros directly in the rpm +package itself. + +This seems to be a bit inconsistent to me. So my question is: shouldn't +we standardize some best practices with regards of RPM macros? For +example for Ruby, we placed the macros into -devel subpackages, because +we believe that it is just development dependency. Any opinions? + + +Vit + +-------------- next part -------------- +A non-text attachment was scrubbed... +Name: signature.asc +Type: application/pgp-signature +Size: 190 bytes +Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. +URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20120713/2377d1ee/attachment.sig> |