> You mean a spec tag, like `AutobuildConfOpts: --some-opts here`? I dunno. The
> tags look even uglier to me than the macros, and macros is what the
> implementations need to deal with anyhow.
I guess, it's just that a spec tag field is standardized, whereas a macro is
not. Macro names can be anything at all and there are no real rules or
discovery mechanisms for them. And if we're talking about handling the basic
case in a reasonably sane way, then being able to pass autobuild configuration
options in a uniform fashion would be nice.
I'm not totally married to the idea of it being a spec tag though. It just
feels like doing so would enforce more consistency.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790550120
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620/c1790550...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
