> The thing is that I'll be fine if RPM does not provide any `_root` prefixed
> macros. But I'll be sad if Flatpak and RPMs will use different prefix for the
> same thing. You might leave this to SCL or Flatpak. OTOH, RPM is the common
> technology for both of them and the place where the technologies could unite
> and benefit from what RPM provides. I don't think there is any benefit if
> everybody needs to reinvent this from the ground once again.
Agreed on that one. I'm not opposed to the idea of making the packaging job
easier and more convenient, of course. In fact that's actually one of our goals
on the [roadmap](https://rpm.org/roadmap.html) (under the rather grand and
ambiguous "hands-free packaging" umbrella).
In this case, the discussion is more about the "where do we do this" than it is
about "if". RPM needs to stay distro-agnostic but maybe there's some underlying
pattern here.
> BTW I also agree that having available "pre-override" variants of macros
> might be nice from time to time 😉
Yup, seems like we've (partially) identified that pattern :smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/721#issuecomment-1810801821
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/721/1810801...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
