rpm macro magic help

Sandro Mani manisandro at gmail.com
Fri Nov 8 13:37:35 UTC 2013

On 08.11.2013 13:47, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:10:19 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
>>> Well, a Shell Function would be more readable, for example. It would
>>> accept normal arguments to fill in variables -- instead of global RPM
>>> macros, which are substituted in the entire spec file.
>> Uhm, how can one this be done? Shell variables are substituted after
>> macro expansion, so i.e.
> With the benefit that the function is more readable and more comprehensible
> (especially if adding comments) than a global RPM macro. In a Shell function
> you could evaluate the arguments and create conditional sections, whereas
> in the RPM macro that would get even less readable.
> The linked spec is an entertaining exercise, but also an example of
> macro-madness. Several values (e.g. paths) are expanded multiple times
> instead of defining them once at the beginning and reusing them later. And
> the macro is not even fully reusable yet due to hardcoded library file
> names.
Well I'm certainly not claiming that it is a generic, package 
independent macro, and yeah, multiple expansions could be avoided. But 
as I said, all this was mainly curiosity-driven, not written with 
excessive care (and not something I would put up for review without 
further attention).

More information about the devel mailing list