[Rpm-maint] [PATCH] forbid #%define

[devzero2000]

>Also, I do have to admit my other agenda of trying to avoid rather useless
>incompatibilities in rpm.org vs rpm5.org.. (shoot me! ;p)

I you thinks this is important  look at this
http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=commitdiff;h=05be2a2fdb44558d2b6bc1b785128c1decae2aae

Look like a "pre-existing" tag was changed from an integer array
to an integer. So, IMHO, it is likely that changes to pre-existing tags will
create
RPM package incompatibilities in the future.

JMHO

Best Regards


On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen <pkarlsen at rpm5.org>
wrote:

> 2008/6/6 Pixel <pixel at mandriva.com>:
>
> Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > A very straightforward and simple rule would be "if the first
>> > character of the text to process starts is "#", braces are required to
>> perform
>> > macro expansion"
>>
>> i'd rather not introduce such a difference between %foo and %{foo}
>> just for the sake of comments. Too surprising IMO.
>>
>> i'd say the more important is that spec editors should be adapted to
>> rpm's behaviour. currently "#%define ..." is displayed as comments in
>> vim/emacs. One way to fix would be to only fix the vim/emacs mode.
>>
>>
>> instead of %foo vs %{foo}, we could do something like:
>>
>> %build
>> cat << EOF > example.conf
>> # To enable feature foo, uncomment the following:
>> #[myplugin]
>> %{expand:#pluginpath = %{_libdir}/%{name}/myplugin.so}
>> EOF
>>
>> a bit ugly, but quite clear...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rpm-maint mailing list
>> Rpm-maint at lists.rpm.org
>> https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
>>
> if I understand you correctly, you suggest that editors (as in syntax
> highligtning) should rather be adapted to treat correct
> commenting out of macro properly and display them such, so that ie. %%macro
> would be displayed as an commented out macro.
>
> If I understand that correctly, I fully agree on it, the task of displaying
> syntax highlightning properly seems better left to editors,
> rather than rpm, so I'm all for! :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-maint mailing list
> Rpm-maint at lists.rpm.org
> https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20080606/d151921c/attachment-0001.htm