OK, this has not made progress for nearly a year. While there may be some use
in further thinking about this the current patch does just not cut it. I am
closing this for now.
Feel free to continue the discussion on the mailing list or in a new, improved
PR.
--
You are receiving this because
Closed #176.
--
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#event-1504075897___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Look above and you will find that naming was and still is my concern.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I wonder if they should be named more similar to bcond_with.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> I think the problem here is that these macros do use the same name for both
> the bcond variable and the configure switch.
You are right. Gentoo has
[`use_enable`](https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/tree/bin/ebuild.sh?id=033e7b68cc5495ab43498a73940be23b919aa5cf#n254)
and
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.
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:
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
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:
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:
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:
11 matches
Mail list logo
