I prefer handle https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2362 and
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929
since I don't use it but I found many people that use _without (wrongly)
we can use : rpmbuild --without check
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316#issuecomment-1899391222
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
I don't use it but I found many people that use it (wrongly)
https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+r:src.fedoraproject.org+file:.*%5C.spec%24+%5C%3Fwithout_=regexp=yes=0=repo
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
while is document , is not intuitive
- %if %{without static} works
- but %{?without_static: ... } doesn't work
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929#issuecomment-1781075023
You are receiving this because you are
as wrote on https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1256
> One way to fix this could be extending bcond_with and bcond_without to
> %undefine the with_ macro in the else case. That way the defaults could be
> overwritten by later lines. This sounds a bit like a bad feature to
when this feature will be available on rpm package ?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929#issuecomment-1340930999
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
is not well explained IMO it should have explicit write without-counterpart
doesn't work
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929#issuecomment-1340930165
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> The proper solutions is to have these kind of macros split out into separate
> packages that have dependencies on the tools they are using/probing. This has
> already be done for Python and a few others.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree , we talked about this some years ago , rpm can't
require
Hello , thinking we saw this problem in mock, in rpmdev-bumpspec and in fedpkg
these 3 commands execute foo.spec and some system-wide does not work , but
maybe should the programs that not print out that warnings because for them
they aren't important .
I hadn't time to look rpmdev-bumpspec
