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:
And for some reason you insist on using the one that doesn't work, and isn't
documented? That's not intuitive to me either.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929#issuecomment-1781094583
You are receiving this because you
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
Closed #1929 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929#event-10778549244
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
The manual explicitly states:
```
Alternatively, you can test the presence (or lack thereof) of %with_foo macros
which is nicer in other situations, e.g.:
%configure \
%{?with_static:--enable-static} \
%{!?with_static:--disable-static}
Always test for the with-condition, not the
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.
