On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:50:38 PM CET Dan Čermák wrote: > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Monday, 18 January 2021 at 23:29, Dan Čermák wrote: > >> clime <clime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > [...] > >> > But when you said "workaround", I was thinking that you actually saw > >> > the correct solution because "workaround" is imho used usually when > >> > someone can't or don't want to solve things the right way so he/she > >> > takes a shortcut. So I was curious what you think is "the right way" > >> > here. > >> > >> Imho the "right way" would be to integrate this into rpmbuild itself > >> instead of adding another layer on top of it. > > > > +1. Maybe it's time to introduce RPM spec file format versioning > > and say .spec files with e.g.: > > > > SPEC-Version: 2 > > > > should be pre-processed by rpmbuild first. > > When we go down that route, we might even think about throwing out m4 > altogether and using a different templating language. I think that m4 isn't used actually. :-) I though that it would be awesome if we could actually finish the m4-as-a-library concept [1] - and maybe teach RPM to use m4, one day. At least it sounds like a good experiment WRT macros (I wished to have something like that when I reached the "max-macro-buffer-size" in RPM, in m4 such limit shouldn't exist). [1] m4 v2.0 sources http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=m4.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master Pavel > But that a very OT > discussion and would rather belong to the rpm development mailinglist. > > > Cheers, > > Dan > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
