On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
>
> I only really care about %__enable_disable macro which replaces such
> obscure PLD idiom:
> --%{?with_runtime:en}%{!?with_runtime:dis}able-runtime-cpudetection
> with much more readable:
> %{__enable_disable runtime runtime-cpudetection}
> Certainly macros are eye scratching pugliness, you will get no argument from me. > All the other macros are to complete the implementation. > > > Your "registry" idea sounds very interesting, but PLD doesn't even have > standarized bcond names (not often, but they differ between spec files > sometimes). So implementing it would require a lot of effort from us. > If there's some fundamental design, particularly with naming conventions (hint: just steal AutoFu conventions and put a _ in front of the names), then a "registry" and inheiritance and YAML/XML/JSON/WHATEVER markup and more could (and should) be attempted. Without strong design conventions, well, PLD has strong methodology even if most distros don't wrto RPM macros. But certainly RPM macro eye scratchiness can always be attempted by adding Yet Another Layer of abstraction. At some point its quite hard to tell how a build should be done ... 73 de Jeff
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
