[Fedora-packaging] scl_prefix vs _scl_prefix

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 05:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >Here's a relatively [ ;-) ] non-controversial change needed to the draft.
> >Right now we have both _scl_prefix and scl_prefix macros.  We need to rename
> >one of those.  Names that differ only in punctuation are confusing.  It
> >looks like _scl_prefix is used less in the draft.  So that's probably the
> >candidate to rename.  Perhaps something like %{_scldir} to be similar to
> >%{_libdir}, %{_sysconfdir}, etc?
> >
> 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.

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.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20131105/4f9158f9/attachment.sig>