[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-05-15 06:45 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I agree and that's why I use, when possible, built-in macros.
> 
> [I thought it was policy.]

It's not policy, unless the packaging guidelines have changed since I last read
them.

> My take on this: if the results of running a build script depend on overriding a
> basic core unix command by the script builder then I'd label that a bug in the
> build script. While your example for rm sounds reasonable, it is not in the
> context of executing a build script which, I think, cannot/should not be
> interactive. Using the macro would actually expose (IMHO) a bug. I'm sure other
> more applicable examples could be put forward, of course...

I don't understand what you're getting at here. The example I gave was that
someone rebuilding a package had a local "rm" script, earlier in their PATH than
/bin/rm, that prompted for confirmation. If this person rebuilt a package that
used plain "rm", the build would become "interactive" (which is bad), but if
they rebuilt a package that used "%{__rm}" instead, the build would be
non-interactive as it's supposed to be (since %{__rm} would expand to /bin/rm
and hence their local rm script wouldn't be used). Using the macro is hence an
advantage.

(In reply to comment #7)
> My preference is to only use macros if there's a solid gain to be had. As in,
> its something that's expected to change (versions) or it handles something ugly
> for you (%configure). I don't see any real gain in using macros such as
> %{_make}.

I think reproducability of builds is a solid gain.

> And most of all, the spec templates do not use these macros, which
> implies to me they should not be used.

Or perhaps the templates should be updated?

> It would be nice to have an explicit policy up on the wiki for this, even if
> that policy is "Use whatever, just be consistent", much like the %{buildroot} vs
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT policy.

+1

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.