On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:50:38 PM CET Dan Čermák wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
writes:
> On Monday, 18 January 2021 at 23:29, Dan Čermák wrote:
>> clime <clime(a)fedoraproject.org> 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