http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051465
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051465#c28
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Blume
(In reply to Thomas Blume from comment #26)
Upstream seems to prefer less string mangling in the rules and to favour using shell scripts instead (see comment#22). I would follow them in this case.
I'm not sure upstream claims that but I really prefer have the oneline shell command embedded in the rule file. It doesn't really make sense to carry a shell script that has a single command.
Ok, so I will try to make this work without a shell script. Let's see if I can find a way.
Currently upstream rule file is named 60-xxx and ours is 61-xxx, so that should be ok.
Ok, so I will rely on this.
Well if upstream doesn't set them we shouldn't either and if they set it then we can reuse them without doing any modifications.
Agreed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.