[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 11:40 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 10:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It seems to me it'd make sense to convert all these kinds of snippets
>> into macros. Am I right, or is there a reason against doing this?
> When this was discussed for the example of GConf schemas in the
> packaging committee a few weeks ago, there was quite a bit of pushback
> about 'obscure macros' hiding whats really going on...

/me notes that we did pass it in the end, though.

I don't believe this would be a problem for things like python_sitelib
which are defining standard directory locations.  using macros for
directories is something that we do everywhere.

For things that are replacing actions, there is a certain amount of
obscuring being done.  This is a barrier for entry for people who know
how to build software from upstream but don't know how to package.  It
also can make debugging harder if something does go wrong in the macro.

However, these are balanced by giving us the ability to change the
instructions in a central location and having that propagate out to the
next build of all packages.  And they can make it simpler to perform an
action correctly if it is complex.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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