On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gerard Beekmans wrote: >> So to summarize simply using the %configure macro won't run it like we'd >> want the configure script to be run.
Yeah. %configure would do a lot more than ./configure. Not that that's a bad thing, but it creates a difference between the two scenarios and could lead to one person having the package working correctly and one not. >> Can't it be overridden or introduce our own %configure-like macro that >> does run things like the book does? You can override all the macros or not use them at all. > Why not just say somewhere on the PM page that we don't use the %configure and > similar macros in our spec files (and call ./configure directly instead) > because > we want 100% correspondence between commands in no-PM and RPM versions of LFS? Right, that's why I was saying you'd probably want to minimize the macro usage in general. However, from the perspective of someone using RPM, I really want to use the macros. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
