Is it ok for you if I make `%{define foo bar}` work? Currently, `%{define foo
bar}` is the same as `%define`, which is kinda sad. I'd rather have it behave
like `%{define:foo bar}`.
Can I also change `%{define:foo bar}` to not use that super weird free-field
parser? I'd prefer to make it work exactly like `%define foo {bar}`. That would
be useful to define multi-line macros in spec files, because
`copyNextLineFromOFI()` sadly does not understand the `%define name {body}`
syntax.
What about `%{define}` and `%{dnl}`? Is it ok to break them or should they
still be the same as %define and %dnl?
--
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/issues/1798#issuecomment-948415193_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
