dmnks left a comment (rpm-software-management/rpm#4293)
> Oh and, seeing [#4299
> (comment)](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4299#issuecomment-5144669008)
> - occurred to me too, just forgot to comment here 🤦 😂 is that couldn't we
> use the specparts directory for this? Okay, not _guaranteed_ conflict free
> then in the way that an entirely new directory is, but the dynamically parsed
> spec parts have .specpart suffix, and as long as we avoid that, it should be
> ok.
Oh! Now *that* did not occur to me at all, but indeed - all these *are* spec
parts. If it weren't for the suffix, we still probably wouldn't want to reuse
the same directory, but since there's the suffix... might as well :laughing:
Seems like a post-vacation brain isn't that useless after all :laughing:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4293#issuecomment-5164626662
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4293/[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
