Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #12 from Ville Skyttä <[email protected]> 2009-01-01 14:20:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Is it possible for rpmdevtools to support replacing of the macro syntax too? I suppose it's _possible_, but I'm not at all sure about the feasibility. The shell style ones can obviously be used only in specfile constructs that are shell code, and replacing macro style ones with them in other sections would cause breakage, and implementing a real specfile parser is not something I even want to think about. For spec templates that are shipped in rpmdevtools I can ensure that no breakage occurs but I can't do that for templates in other packages, such as these new font templates. > Because I know many packagers use the templates as plain text templates too > without use of rpmdevtools automation, and I'd really like the default not to > be the shell variant in that case > > I also have some opinions on this point :p Doh :P. Well, even if it's not a "solution", I suppose educating them to take advantage of the rpmdevtools features wouldn't hurt. > Of course it it's absolutely necessary for rpmdevtools I will change this. It's not "absolutely necessary", but unless changed, it will be a small regression. rpmdevtools 7.0 does not do macros->shell replacement, but it should take care of the -simple/-multi selection, always producing a foo-fonts.spec result, and <FONTNAME> replacement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
