[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Proposal (and yes, I'm willing to do stuff!): Must Use More Macros



On 06/05/2009 11:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 11:43 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>> The way to get these changed is to first go through the Packaging
>> Committee to get the changes approved, then have the macros merged into
>> the packages that will provide them.  Then patch the packages that
>> should be updated.
> 
> Would it be best to have the concrete implementation (or at least some
> examples) built before taking it to the packaging committee, or no?
> 
Yes it would.  We'd want to end up with a list of the macros to use in
specific circumstances rather than the expanded form that's currently
there.  In doing that, we'd want to test that the new Guidelines work,
so having the concrete implementation is necessary.  If this sounds
daunting, doing a few at a time is certainly possible.

>> Note: I remember one argument against macros being that they make spec
>> files harder to port between distros but I'm not willing to champion
>> that argument.  If someone else does, I'll certainly listen to the
>> reasoning, though. :-)
> 
> The obvious answer to that is to try and standardize macro usage between
> distributions, not to not use macros. For e.g., I revamped the Mandriva
> Tcl packaging policy late last year: I took the macro names and even
> code snippets from Fedora's Tcl policy. I just implemented them as
> system-wide macros in the tcl-devel package instead of writing in the
> policy that they should be re-defined at the top of every spec file :)

<nod>  That would be great!

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]