[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Inconsistent macro expansion (Issue #1798)

[Michael Schroeder]

Is it ok for you if I make `%{define foo bar}` work? Currently, `%{define foo bar}` is the same as `%define`, which is kinda sad. I'd rather have it behave like `%{define:foo bar}`.

Can I also change `%{define:foo bar}` to not use that super weird free-field parser? I'd prefer to make it work exactly like `%define foo {bar}`. That would be useful to define multi-line macros in spec files, because `copyNextLineFromOFI()` sadly does not understand the `%define name {body}` syntax.

What about `%{define}` and `%{dnl}`? Is it ok to break them or should they still be the same as %define and %dnl?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1798#issuecomment-948415193
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20211021/a7ffa0b9/attachment.html>