On 6/3/22 03:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BTW isn't the `_flag_` prefix too generic? And also, the initial
underscore implies that this is internal macro which should ideally not
be used. So should it be rather removed or not?
I agree that the "_flag_" prefix might be a little too generic, but
what would be a better alternative?
Maybe something like _optflag_, to match what they are "collected
into" (i.e. %optflags)?
What about prefixing them with _build_flag_ The redhat-rpm-config docs[1],
recommend using the %build_*flags macros instead of %optflags, so maybe we
should try to match that.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config//blob/rawhide/f/buildflags.md
-Tom
Also, macro names with single leading underscores are *fine* (see also
%_bindir, %_libdir, %_datadir, etc.).
Those with *double* leading underscores are the ones that should be
considered "internal" implementation details.
Fabio
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
