https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258182 Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(vondruch@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #11 from Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > Looking into the .spec file, wouldn't it be better to reverse the virtual > provides, e.g. > > compiler(go-compiler) -> go(compiler) > compiler(gcc-go) -> go(gcc-go) > compiler(golang) -> go(golang) > > Or possibly go(comp9ler_gcc-go), go(compiler_golang)? > > As far as I understand these are Go specific macros, so they should be in go() > format similarly to every other language specific macros.> This is another way of looking at it. I don't mine any of them. What about to provide both ways? compiler(...) is general and can be provided by any package with a compiler. To get a list of all compiler provided by distribution, you can run 'dnf/yum provides "compiler(*)"' or similar command. On the other hand go(...) is specific and meant only for golang. Which is more suitable for spec file. However, it is harder to search for it. I have not found any mention of compiler(...) or similar that would be used in general. At least not for gcc not java. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review