On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 14:40 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 10:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
It seems to me it'd make sense to convert all these kinds of
snippets
into macros. Am I right, or is there a reason against doing this?
When this was discussed for the example of GConf schemas in the
packaging committee a few weeks ago, there was quite a bit of
pushback
about 'obscure macros' hiding whats really going on...
Honestly, that just sounds silly. It's not obscuring things, it's a
sensible level of abstraction and reuse.
I suspect you'd have trouble selling that position to developers -
"instead of calling functions from obscure external libraries, just
copy
and paste the code from them into every single app you build!" I don't
think that'd go down a storm. ;)
Libraries have well defined error handling. Macros can get pretty
mysterious when they start failing. Poor analogy.
joe
As long as there's a clear and sensible policy for how macros should
be
implemented (what the files should be called and what packages they
should go in), they wouldn't be 'obscure' at all. All you'd need to do
to check what a given macro did would be 'grep
(macroname) /etc/rpm/macros.*' or something similar.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
