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

[Per Øyvind Karlsen]

(sent with wrong address due to gmail, moderator feel free to reject the
other)

2008/6/6 Per Øyvind Karlsen <proyvind at gmail.com>:

> 2008/6/6 Manfred Hollstein <mh at novell.com>:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008, 11:25:02 +0200, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Sorry for justr barging in on the thread, I'm writing from my gmail
>> account
>> > now and didn't get the chance to read the thread.
>> >
>> > But I find it silly to add extra complexity to comment out macros with a
>> > '#', when they can already be commented out with an extra '%' which is
>> well
>> > documented.
>> >
>> > So for what gain would it be? Near zero for anyone except for novice
>> > packagers, while giving headaches for people relying on old behaviour..
>>
>> Well, I don't think I'm a novice packager, but to me it looked much
>> more orthogonal if the '#' were treated as a general comment character
>> independent of such "special" rules...
>>
>> > My 2 cents..
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> l8er
>> manfred
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rpm-maint mailing list
>> Rpm-maint at lists.rpm.org
>> https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
>>
> My argument is that %macros isn't shell scripts, even if they're mixed, '#'
> isn't even always the equivalent of a comment either in all cases, all
> depending on context.
> While in a perfect world everything would be nice and shiny with magic,
> shiny rainbows and unicorns, such cannot always be accomplished, especially
> after ~10 years of
> such behaviour. Do you *REALLY* want to make such a change to rpm just for
> simple convenience/cosmetics just for this without taking into regard any
> possible
> implications such a change might have after being there for 10 years?
>
> I really don't think so, if anything, checking rpm specs for sanity should
> be left for tools like rpmlint, and not dousins of hacks in rpm..
>
> Using double %% for commenting out multiline macros should really be
> possible for most people to learn, refering to documentation that's been
> around for ages on the topic shouldn't hurt either..
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20080606/1be7334a/attachment-0001.htm