On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 16:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
On 7/26/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio(a)tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 15:32 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On 7/26/06, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio(a)tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
> > > Read again what I wrote -- it's not about a feature that's in php
> > > (well, actually a feature of the web server) "?> ", it's
about a
> > > hypothetical bug discovery process involving "<?php ".
> >
> > So should we change all php source files to use "<?php" or should
you
> > fix php to accept "<?php ". Then ask yourself, should we fix all
spec
> > files to add a %build, or should we fix redhat-rpm-config?
>
> Yep. We fix redhat-rpm-config. Then the next time we run across
> something unexpected happens we break packages again. Then we fix it
> again. Then it breaks again.....
>
> We're supposed to be promoting good packaging practice here. If we know
> that something as simple as including %build in your spec is a way to
> isolate your package from some subset of problematic special cases, then
> we should do that.
Okay, so you are saying it is better to hide or mask problems rather
than fix them?
Nope. We should try not to purposefully stick our hand in any fires.
If we find a problem, it should be fixed, but promoting practices that
we know risk triggering bugs when there are simple, straightforward, and
clean ways to code it instead is just good sense.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Probably the reason things
are so hacky as they are now is because we have been hiding problems
rather than fixing them.
Nah. They're hacky because bugzilla allows jbj to close rpm bugs
WONTFIX :-)
-Toshio