I think the problem here is that these macros do use the same name for both the
bcond variable and the configure switch. I'd rather think that the interesting
cases are where you need to have some high level bcond switch may be even
resulting in multiple copnfigure switches of different names.
Using the same name is especially weird for the disable and without cases. I
really cannot see the use case where you would have to pass --with-foo just to
have foo disabled in the configure script. I can imagine disabling other
features while enabling foo.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/176#issuecomment-297698504
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
