On Nov 1, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
2008/11/1 Jeff Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What is wrong with
CPPFLAGS="-DRPM_VENDOR_MANDRIVA"
Its insane to have Yet More Ways to configure "stuff" imho.
73 de Jeff
It's hidden from "regular user" who'd like to build rpm himself for
that specific vendor.
Hidden? Adding another option is no substitute for identifying
exactly the functionality desired in Mandriva. If you want better doco,
then write better doco on how to use rpm5.org on Mandriva. Adding
--with-vendor does nothing except what
CPPFLAGS="-DRPM_VENDOR_MANDRIVA"
already does. I don't see any additional benefit from
adding an enumeration for vendors that are, in fact, hardly
likely to adopt rpm5.org any time soon.
Not that Mandriva uses rpm5.org, nor is Mandriva expected to change
from rpm.org. So what purpose is served?
If --with-vendor=mandriva did anything useful, like identifying
specific components that should be included when building,
I might be saying something else.
But there is already devtool, which can add an entire collection
of configure options when invoking rpm5.org ./configure. Try
adding a %mandriva stanza to devtool.conf.
Maybe not such an important thing for rpm devels, but I know that if
I were to build
rpm5 myself for ie. Mandriva without being involved in rpm
development nor reading
through source just for fun, I'd like to easily find and use the
suitable option to pick
what to be considered the most proper adaptions using './configure --
help'.
I couldn't care less about yjr AutoFu. But adding --with-vendor=fedora
is hardly
the same thing as claiming Fedora support. Fedora has most definitely
said
that rpm5.org is not permitted in the Fedora distro without being
crippled. I see
no reason to pretend support --with-vendor=fedora for a distro that
wants to cripple
rpm5.org functionality. And I'm quite sure that rpm5.org would not be
permitted
in Fedora no matter what. The criteria would just change to
Now that we've crippled rpm5.org so that its useless, do we really
need to include in Fedora?
Moreover, personally, I just find it nicer and more intuitive than
passing either CPPFLAGS,
or adding it to config.h.. ;)
So have at. But I don't see how adding Yet More AutoFu changes much of
anything at all.
73 de Jeff
