@pmatilai commented on this pull request.


> @@ -166,8 +184,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
        argerror(_("no arguments given"));
     }
 
-#ifdef WITH_IMAEVM
-    if (fileSigningKey && !(sargs.signflags & RPMSIGN_FLAG_IMA)) {
+#if defined(WITH_IMAEVM) || defined(WITH_FSVERITY)
+    if (fileSigningKey &&
+       !(sargs.signflags & (RPMSIGN_FLAG_IMA | RPMSIGN_FLAG_FSVERITY))) {
        argerror(_("--fskpath may only be specified when signing files"));

The actual {} block ends on the same indentation level as the condition, which 
makes it unnecessarily hard to read. Either:
- use a helper variable to shorten the condition to fit on one line
- further indent the line continuation to make it stand out
- put the opening { on a line of its own

With good naming, the helper variable approach typically yields by far the most 
readable code, but it depends.
Similar indentation problems are present elsewhere in the patch(es) too, please 
check out for them.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1203#pullrequestreview-418913170
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

Reply via email to