> The exact syntax is subject to endless bikeshedding of course, but one thing
> that strikes me as just wrong are the surrounding spaces everywhere. There
> are no "courtesy spaces" for readability anywhere in rpm macros, I dont think
> this should be any different.
Here are 2 relevant examples from the current spec files (the most frequently
used):
```%global with_lua %{?_without_lua: 0} %{?!_without_lua: 1}```
```%{?gitdate:%{gitdate}}%{?!gitdate:%{version}}```
Without "courtesy spaces" the whole triple conditional macro looks:
```%global with_lua %{?{_without_lua}:0:1}```
```%{?{gitdate}:%{gitdate}:%{version}}```
But with spaces it looks better:
```%global with_lua %{?{_without_lua} : 0 : 1}```
```%{?{gitdate} : %{gitdate} : %{version}}```
Note that inside conditionally expanded macros packagers tend to use spaces
after ':' even if there are not supported. Thus it looks that packagers prefer
to use spaces that help to have the macro readable.
> This also makes me wonder if it's really worth the added complexity, it's
> merely syntactic sugar afterall.
It is a syntactic sugar, but it will help to improve packager experience with
spec files.
> Any particular reason for this specific syntax over the others discussed in
> the ticket?
I asked several packagers and this was the preferred syntax. FYI remaining
possibilities are
```%{? {_without_lua} : 0 ! 1 }```
```%{? {_without_lua} ? 0 ! 1 }```
```%{? {_without_lua} ? 0 : 1 }```
```%{?: _without_lua : 0 : 1 }```
```%{? _without_lua ? 0 : 1 }```
> Oh and to make it clear, this is strictly 4.16 material, we don't want
> changes this drastic at this point in 4.15 cycle, so there's all the time in
> the world for review and further discussion.
I have a deadline - 4th October.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/746#issuecomment-509658688_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
