Re: Should rpmlint warn about misleading indentation?
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely
<jwakely(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
I've seen a few spec files with content like this:
%configure --disable-static --with-imagemagick --with-magickpp \
--without-libavcodec
CPPFLAGS='-DMagickLib=MagickCore -I/usr/include/ImageMagick'
There's no backslash before the CPPFLAGS variable, so it's useless.
Should rpmlimt warn about this?
It would have to allow indentation after %if or shell if/for/while
etc. so might be tricky to do for the whole spec file, but just doing
it for %configure would have been enough for the cases I've seen
recently.
Worth creating a BZ enhancement request for rpmlint?
BZ, no. Upstream github, perhaps, if submitted as a pull request
containing the implementation and a bunch of test cases. Note however
that in your example above, although very likely, it is possible that
CPPFLAGS might not actually be useless, it depends what comes after
it. Quite honestly, I think getting this robust enough will be quite a
bit of work for a small number of cases, and possibly minor effect
even within them.