On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 06:53:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 03:37:01PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > It's also that redhat-rpm-config has come far from its humble > > origins: it originated as a package where Red Hat build > > policy/configuration is set. Things like vendor name, payload > > compression etc. But nowadays there are entire ecosystems of utility > > macros living inside. > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.dwz > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.fedora-misc > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.fedora-misc-srpm > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.forge > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.ldc-srpm > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.ldconfig > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.mono-srpm > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.nodejs-srpm > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.valgrind-srpm > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.vpath > > I think some of these should be moved to *-srpm-macros packages. The > languages already did that (eg. ocaml-srpm-macros). We could should move *some* of those out, in particular macros.forge, but most of the files are really tiny, a few lines excluding comments. So it probably wouldn't be worth the overhead to create separate packages for them. I think that keeping them here is the best option. So… to to proceed with this? Should proven packagers merge pull requests that don't have any negative comments? Neal and Tom volunteered help in the other part of the thread: should they be added as comaintainers? Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
