Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 1513292 - rpm.org documentation does not cover conditional macro syntax
Summary: rpm.org documentation does not cover conditional macro syntax
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Packaging Maintenance Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-11-15 05:57 UTC by Evan Klitzke
Modified: 2017-11-15 10:36 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-11-15 10:36:21 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Evan Klitzke 2017-11-15 05:57:53 UTC
I can maybe just send a GitHub pull request for this, although I would kind of prefer an RPM maintainer make the change since I don't know if there's other syntax that should be documented.

I recently came across a package that had a macro expansion of the form %{?foo:1}. I couldn't find this documented at http://rpm.org/user_doc/macros.html . Actually, even the form %{?foo} is not defined there. Eventually I found http://backreference.org/2011/09/17/some-tips-on-rpm-conditional-macros/ which explains the syntax, as well as another form %{!?foo:1}. These should both be documented.

Comment 1 Panu Matilainen 2017-11-15 10:36:21 UTC
Doh, can't disagree, that rather fundamental syntax is completely undocumented.

However this is not a Fedora issue but rpm.org upstream web-pages, so I took the liberty of moving this to the correct tracker:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm-web/issues/4

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.