On Wednesday 18 November 2009 18:49:37 Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
> Your "registry" idea sounds very interesting, but PLD doesn't even have
> standarized bcond names (not often, but they differ between spec files
> sometimes). So implementing it would require a lot of effort from us.
which reminded t
On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
>
> I only really care about %__enable_disable macro which replaces such
> obscure PLD idiom:
> --%{?with_runtime:en}%{!?with_runtime:dis}able-runtime-cpudetection
> with much more readable:
> %{__enable_disable runtime runtime-cpu
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:20:05AM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Before you get into a litter of additional macros for
> bconds, please note that when originally implemented
> (by PLD, always first ;-) bcond's were intended as booleans.
>
> When bconds were picked up by RPM using --with/--without p
Before you get into a litter of additional macros for
bconds, please note that when originally implemented
(by PLD, always first ;-) bcond's were intended as booleans.
When bconds were picked up by RPM using --with/--without popt aliases
(that are essentially just --define wrappings to conventiona
Because I don't expect any constructive feedback just yet I'm going to
introduce the changes right away and we will discuss and later fix them
eventually.
I'm proposing few macros to easily convert bconds to configure options.
Implementation looks like this:
# expand bconds to --enable-somethi
