The resistance you run into is a strong hint that the packaging committee ought to keep this issue out of the policies. Strong language doesn't help it. And you are right, the desire to force packagers into macro-madness and less readable spec files is "silly". History: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg01242.html
(a) The goal of the packaging guidelines is to establish a consistent "dialect" of rpm-spec-speak which (i) works and (ii) makes life as simple for all extras contributors to read and maintain packages. (b) SOURCEn and RPM_SOURCE_DIR both have pros and cons, supporters and and objectors. (c) SOURCEn and RPM_SOURCE_DIR both will do the job, and so one could argue on technical merit that the choice is arbitrary. (d) Wherever there are multiple ways to do things, in order to achieve (a)(ii) above, it is helpful to establish a best practice which removes redundancy and lowers the learning curve for new contributors. (e) SOURCEn is ubiquitous within Extras packages. RPM_SOURCE_DIR is much less common. I know what conclusion I draw from these observations. Jonathan. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
