> Would it make sense to be able to expose some kind of simple way to pass
> options to the configure stanza? Autotools, CMake, and Meson at least all
> accept configure options, and it'd make sense to be able to do this without
> having to override the whole stage.
The thought crossed my mind too, we could of course add an optional
%{autobuild_mumble_opts} macro that can be used for passing extra options. I'm
not sure how much more readable it is than overriding the section though (which
is why it's not in the draft):
```
%conf
%autobuild_conf --add-some-option 2
```
vs
``
%define autobuild_conf_opts --add-some-option 2
```
The latter *is* more in line with the notion of declarative, so perhaps that's
the way to go. Without taking away the ability to override sections.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790475991
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620/c1790475...@github.com>_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
