On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 03/19/2012 10:43 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:34:06AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>On 03/19/2012 10:31 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >>>On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:14:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>>>On 03/19/2012 09:47 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >>>>>This series change the Makefile to use $(confdir) instead of > >>>>>$(sysconfdir)/qemu, and allows the full config path configurable instead > >>>>>of > >>>>>forcing the use of $(sysconfdir)/qemu. > >>>> > >>>>What's the use case here? Is this to allow $(sysconfdir)/qemu-kvm? > >>> > >>>Yes. On RHEL we usually package qemu-kvm only, but we try to avoid > >>>conflicts in case other flavors of qemu be provided by third-parties > >>>(read: EPEL). > >>> > >>>> > >>>>I'd rather we use a PACKAGE_NAME define to do that and have qemu-kvm > >>>>change PACKAGE_NAME. > >>> > >>>I tried to mimic --mandir, --datadir, --docdir, and all other options > >>>that expect full paths instead of trying to building one itself. > >>> > >>>A --package-name option could be provided to make it easier to override > >>>all the defaults at the same time, but I don't see why not include an > >>>option to define the full path for confdir, just like we allow for > >>>datadir, docdir, and mandir. > >> > >>No, I'm not suggesting --package-name, I'm suggesting that qemu-kvm > >>would carry a patch to configure that changed a fixed PACKAGE_NAME > >>define. > > > >Are you really suggesting that forcing downstream to carry a patch is > >better than having a configure option? > > To change the package name? Absolutely!
Why? > > >If you suggest making it configurable using a variable on the 'make' > >command-line it would be OK, but I kind of hoped that no modern software > >project would ever require packagers to use configure-by-sed methods to > >set build parameters. > > Changing the package name is a Big Deal. It's not that we should > provide a friendly interface for. Why is it a Big Deal? > > If you're already a downstream, I don't see the problem carrying a > one liner for something this significant. Why it is so significant? Why is /etc/qemu so different from mandir, docdir, and datadir? -- Eduardo
