> It would help to understand the actual use-case behind this.
This is the original macro:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/05a6c9c8f3bbc26d12835736791431c74d07552d/f/macros.rubygems#_15
And here you can see its usage:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/05a6c9c8f3bbc26d12835736791431c74d07552d/f/ruby.spec#_137
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/05a6c9c8f3bbc26d12835736791431c74d07552d/f/ruby.spec#_1588-1598
When the gems are in pre-release version, the version typically looks like
`3.5.5.dev` and I wanted to make `3.5.5~dev` RPM version out of it, therefore I
wanted to make e.g. `test_unit_prerelease` macro to contain the `.dev` suffix
> I'll also note that this is in already in the territory where doing things in
> Lua with proper program logic will be much easier to both write and read.
Funnily enough, we were forced to use Lua for
[c9s](https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/ruby/-/blob/stream-ruby-3.3-rhel-9.6.0/macros.rubygems?ref_type=heads#L15),
because RPM does not support `%{sub:...}` there. ATM, I don't think it is more
readable nor shorter. But admittedly, it could also be written different way ...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3411#discussioncomment-11096807
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/3411/comments/11096...@github.com>_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
