----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > On 11/04/2013 05:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > That's upstream decision. I'm not sure if it doesn't break backward
> > compatibility. CC'ing the upstream.
> >
> slavek said that we could change things like this so I bring it up.
>
Did I? I think I might have said that we can add a macro that will be named differently and have the same value, but I don't think that I've ever said that we can throw any of current macros away.
> If backwards compatibility is important, you can define both _scl_prefix and
> _scldir to the same meanings and document that _scl_prefix is deprecated.
> However, that's not ideal as it doesn't prevent people from using
> %{_scl_prefix} when they meant to use %{scl_prefix} and getting confused.
> If %{_scl_prefix} is undefined, then rpmbuild would throw an error instead
>
> In the draft itself, %{_scl_prefix} isn't used in any public place so it may
> not have large backwards compatibility problems, though.
>
I'd prefer leaving it. If we don't talk about _scl_prefix, I guess that people won't run into this problem. (It doesn't seem likely to try to write scl_prefix and put an underscore before that as a typo :)).
> -Toshio
Slavek
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
