This is a side topic, and I didn't want to clutter the FESCo ticket
with that. But here we have threads, so I hope that you'll forgive me ;)
If find the %bcond_with/%bcond_without pattern abhorrent.
1. The logic is reversed: when I see "with" I think something is enabled,
when
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:03 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> The dist-bound conditional should be specified outside the spec file,
> preferably on a distribution-level. E.g. RHEL decides that it does not
> want to distribute a documentation, then it defines "%_without_docs 1" in
> srpm
> build root macro
On 4/6/20 12:53 PM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Le lundi 06 avril 2020 à 09:03 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit :
# Build an HTML manual with ascidoc
%bcond_without docs
# Perform the tests
%bcond_without tests
I feel the above syntax is hopeless. You need boilerplate (in all eln
specs!) to exp
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:53:55AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> Le lundi 06 avril 2020 à 09:03 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit :
> >
> > # Build an HTML manual with ascidoc
> > %bcond_without docs
> > # Perform the tests
> > %bcond_without tests
>
> I feel the above syntax is hopeless. You
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:03:08AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 03:14:07PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > This is not what we were discussing. This should be compared with
> > %bcond_with/%bcond_without, which would looks like this:
> >
&g
Le lundi 06 avril 2020 à 09:03 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit :
>
> # Build an HTML manual with ascidoc
> %bcond_without docs
> # Perform the tests
> %bcond_without tests
I feel the above syntax is hopeless. You need boilerplate (in all eln
specs!) to explain that foo_without tests means enabling test
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 03:14:07PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> This is not what we were discussing. This should be compared with
> %bcond_with/%bcond_without, which would looks like this:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 0
> %bcond_without docs
> %bcond_without test
g
> > > %endif
> > > ```
> > >
> > > This makes conditionals (when they are necessary) much easier to
> > > maintain (and understand), in my experience."
> >
> > This is a side topic, and I didn't want to clutter the FESCo ticket
&g
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 4:32 AM Aleksandra Fedorova
wrote:
> Something like:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 0
> %define_cond docs 1
> %define_cond tests 1
> %endif
>
> %if 0%{?rhel} > 0
> %define_cond docs 0
> %define_cond tests 1
> %endif
>
Isn't the >0 superfluous? Just the "%if 0%{?fedora}" will evalu
; %endif
> >
> > # ...
> >
> > %if %{with docs}
> > # do something
> > %endif
> > ```
> >
> > This makes conditionals (when they are necessary) much easier to
> > maintain (and understand), in my experience."
>
> This is a s
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 20:36 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> 1. The logic is reversed: when I see "with" I think something is
> enabled,
>when I see "without" I think something is disabled. But it's
> actually
>the other way around here, which I find very confusing and often
> ge
On 03.04.20 22:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> So... could we please get a way to express this in rpm with a sane syntax:
>
> %define_cond docs 0%{?fedora} > 0
Oh please, yes.
Christopher
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 03. 04. 20 22:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
So... could we please get a way to express this in rpm with a sane syntax:
%define_cond docs 0%{?fedora} > 0
(Naming and details of syntax are just examples, but the important
parts are: one line, name before value, positive logic).
Yes
h easier to
> maintain (and understand), in my experience."
This is a side topic, and I didn't want to clutter the FESCo ticket
with that. But here we have threads, so I hope that you'll forgive me ;)
If find the %bcond_with/%bcond_without pattern abhorrent.
1. The logic is reve
14 matches
Mail list logo
