Le mardi 23 août 2011 à 16:23 +0200, grenoya a écrit : > Le 23/08/11 15:44, Thierry Vignaud a écrit : > > On 21 August 2011 15:44, Colin Guthrie<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I do have to wonder why those macros are used... it seems quite trivial > >> to use the actual commands directly and that ultimately increases > >> portability (which maybe isn't a major concern, but all the same) > >> > >> What are the general thoughts on this? > > > > As a 12+ years maintainer of mdv/mdv/mga, I think most spec don't use those. > > They don't bring anything anyway. > > If only, we could standardize on the most usefull macros between distro at > > first > > (eg %make vs make %{?_smp_mflags}) > > '%foo' commands are wrappers. > Like '%make' is a wrapper for "make -j4" (parralel compilation on 4 nodes) > It can be quicker to build with the command, but in some cases (I met > some) it brakes the build. > > From my point of view (I am not packager since long) commands are great > tools, it eases our work a lot :) > So I agree with Tv: we should use them every time it is possible. At > least the most commons.
the problem is that we are not sure when there is a wrapper, and when there is one and it doesn't nothing more, they obscure the fact that rpm is just a shell script + metadata. I think for some people, this look like magic :) So when the macro do something more, yes we need to use it. If not, and if we want to follow others distribution, we should take a look at their policy I found the one of Fedora on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros , and basically, they say "use rm rather than %{_rm}". If someone can find the one of Suse or others, that would help use to see if a consensus emerge -- Michael Scherer
