I'll be a little pedantic here :>). Technically, an ABI pertains to the manner in which an assembler program will interact with itself (Ex. when a program calls an internal function). The ABI describes how arguments are passed, which registers should be saved, Etc.. RPM macros are *far* closer to being an API, than an ABI, as APIs describes the *functions* that a program may use, as opposed to the interactions between the functions themselves.
Technically, macros are also different from functions (they may generate inline code through the compiler, or may refer to functions that write themselves). I've consulted ChatGPT on what these APIs may typically be named, and they are typically named "Macro APIs," or "Macro interfaces" (I'm not sure if these names are correct). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_binary_interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 11:50, Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 6:20 AM Jakub Jelen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 11:01 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 02:42:38PM -0500, Maxwell G wrote: > >> > Jul 20, 2026 11:50:33 AM Neal Gompa <[email protected]>: > >> > > >> > > Sorry, I don't think this makes sense. Why %openpgpverify instead of > >> > > just changing the implementation under %gpgverify? > >> > If we can ensure that changing the implementation doesn't break any > >> > existing > >> > packages, I think updating the existing one makes sense, but otherwise > >> > renaming it is probably better. > >> > >> I'm with Neal on this… Please make the existing macro use the new tool. > > > > > > As already mentioned by Fabio, the gpgverify naming is confusing as its > > tied to the > > GnuPG name (instead of the OpenPGP standard) and we deliberately wanted to > > avoid > > this confusion. > > > > It wouldn't matter in practice, because I think I would say no matter > what you do, you have to fix %gpgverify too. > > With my FESCo hat on, I don't see myself reasonably considering to > approve this change. The rationale is too weak. If you want to > introduce an *additional* interface, sure, whatever. But as it stands, > this juice is not worth the squeeze. > > And calling it %openpgpverify is just nonsense. *If* I were to accept > a rename of the macro, I would *only* reasonably consider %pgpverify, > since that's the name of the format. > > And even beyond that, GPG is deeply embedded as the name in the > ecosystem. Even if we're not using GnuPG, we're not going to go > through and do hundreds of API/ABI breaks across the ecosystem just > for a rename. > > Don't make it harder on us unless there's a seriously compelling reason. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > -- -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
