Mmm... You are right, of course. It's been some time, since I've created the
patch and apparently I have forgotten the details.
Anyway there are many configure-like scripts that accept
--enable-/--disable-/--with-/--without- options, not necessarily generated with
autotools. I have found
I'd defer to @pmatilai and @ffesti on this, but from my point of view, I'd just
name them something like `cfg_enable`, `cfg_disable`, `cfg_with`,
`cfg_without`...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:17:40PM +0300, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote:
> Replace home-grown buggy imitation of getline(3) with use of getline(3).
>
> Fixes: 92a8babf1b46 ("Remove hopefully the last static buffer in rpm spec
> reading")
> Closes:
Not that I see anything particularly wrong with this, but, umm, why do you want
this?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
To generate arguments for configure scripts. Take a look a few lines above at
%{with}/%{without} macros. My macros do exactly the same but for
--enable-/--disable-.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The with/without macros don't quite work the same way, as they don't assume
autotools underneath. Your enable/disable macros do.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
