__ in rpm macros

[Filip Kalinski]

On day Thu, May 23, 2002 at 05:01:23PM +0200, Michal Moskal wrote what follows:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:49:44PM +0200, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:44:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > > > I guess it would be better to use %automake and %autoconf (and maybe
> > > > %make).
> > > 
> > > Not so neccessary. We do not write C code ;) ... but seems you are right :)
> > > Comment from /usr/lib/rpm/macros:
> > > 
> > > #==============================================================================
> > > # Macro naming conventions (preliminary):
> > > #
> > > #       Macros that begin with an underscore are "local" in the sense that
> > > #       they (if used) will not be exported in rpm headers. Some macros
> > > #       that don't start with an underscore (but look like they should)
> > > #       are compatible with macros generated by rpm-2.5.x and will be made
> > > #       more consistent in a future release.
> > > #
> > > 
> > > So probaly will be good add:
> > >...
> > 
> > Do we need %automake and such exported in rpm headers???? No. We only
> > need them expanded while executing spec file. So, if I understand the
> > text above well, you are wrong.
> 
> Hmm... so %configure is exported? %makeinstall? %setup? Strange...
> 

BTW, %setup is not a macro.

-- 
Filip Kalinski <f.kalinski at zodiac.mimuw.edu.pl>