> One more thing wrt the macro name: I wonder if this is a case where it should
> _not_ have those leading underscores. The generator itself is full of double
> underscore names, but the newly added macro here is something directly
> intended for packager use in a spec. I dunno, it may even be more confusing
> to have one of the macros without them 😅
May be someone(tm) should write down the policy regarding underscores. May be
in a [RPM Design Philosophy](#2897) document...
IIRC the idea was that macros without underscore are the packagers. One
underscore are RPM's macro to be used by packagers and double underscore are
internal macros to be left untouched. Not that this really is done that way.
But I agree that there should probably be less underscores.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734#issuecomment-1941125050
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/c1941125...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
