Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-12 14:48 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > It's personal preference. I personally consider this change to be a 
> > > regression
> > > since "%__rm" expends to a fully-qualified pathname, unlike plain "rm". 
> > 
> > What about %{__make}?  I've been asked to change that to "make" in some 
> > reviews.
> My personal preference is to use the macros where they are available, and
> fully-qualified pathnames otherwise, for all commands used in the build 
> process.

I agree and that's why I use, when possible, built-in macros.

[I thought it was policy.]

I'm sure this has been discussed to death here before :-)

My take on this: if the results of running a build script depend on overriding a
basic core unix command by the script builder then I'd label that a bug in the
build script. While your example for rm sounds reasonable, it is not in the
context of executing a build script which, I think, cannot/should not be
interactive. Using the macro would actually expose (IMHO) a bug. I'm sure other
more applicable examples could be put forward, of course...

What I don't see is why %{__rm} should be different from any other unix command.
It is just a unix command... 

(I would prefer to keep using macros when possible. I understand this is
probably not so important these days, all builds are done in chroot environments
where they are completely isolated.)

> > Fernando - I think people also like to see:
> My preference is:
> Source0:{version}.tar.gz

Sounds good to me, I agree the version number should not be hardwired, otherwise
what's the use of macros? :-)

I'll wait a bit before releasing another version in case there are more changes.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to