On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 11:43 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > To some extent, yes. macros can go overboard, though. I think that the > macros you're planning are going to make sense, though :-)
Thanks. > 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? > 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 :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
