Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-04-09 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Cristian Le via devel wrote: > It would be unfair to require upstream to support that pattern when > CMake does not provide the tools to do so (I know about approaches with > $ and configure_package_config_file(PATH_VARS), but > these are not easy to adapt and support for older versions). if(IS_AB

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-04-05 Thread Cristian Le via devel
On 2025/03/18 0:56, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Cristian Le via devel wrote: Coming back to `LIB_SUFFIX` and `*_INSTALL_DIR`, those should have never been added globally [2] Why not? All of those, similar to `CMAKE_POLICY_VERSION_MINIMUM` hide an underlying issue that should have been rep

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-03-18 Thread Cristian Le via devel
On 2025/03/18 11:35, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: At the technical level, you may be completely right. But at the level of the organization of the work in the distro, this change is very disruptive. Yes, I am not arguing that the pushing of my PR without a change proposal was a bad idea

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-03-18 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:55:21AM +0100, Cristian Le via devel wrote: > On 2025/03/18 0:56, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > Cristian Le via devel wrote: > > > Coming back to `LIB_SUFFIX` and `*_INSTALL_DIR`, those should have never > > > been added globally [2] > > Why not? > > All of those,

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-03-17 Thread Yaakov Selkowitz
On 3/12/25 07:43, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: Hello. Non-standard options removal[1] from %cmake macros broke various packages in Rawhide[2]. Some projects still use LIB_SUFFIX and LIB_INSTALL_DIR. They are all FTBFS now. This change was done without proper announcement. Please revert

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-03-17 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Cristian Le via devel wrote: > Coming back to `LIB_SUFFIX` and `*_INSTALL_DIR`, those should have never > been added globally [2] Why not? LIB_SUFFIX might not be standard, but is used across many projects and has clear semantics. If the project does not use it, it will just ignore it. So why r

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-03-12 Thread Cristian Le via devel
On 2025/03/12 13:22, Michael J Gruber wrote: Interesting. This is also a perfect example of how *not* to write git commit nor changelog messages: everybody who can read those few lines of diff will know what got removed and that it wasn't "standard" (or else it would not have been defined manua

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-03-12 Thread Michael J Gruber
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel venit, vidit, dixit 2025-03-12 12:43:05: > Hello. > > Non-standard options removal[1] from %cmake macros broke various > packages in Rawhide[2]. > > Some projects still use LIB_SUFFIX and LIB_INSTALL_DIR. They are all > FTBFS now. > > This change was done without prope

Non-standard options removal from %cmake

2025-03-12 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
Hello. Non-standard options removal[1] from %cmake macros broke various packages in Rawhide[2]. Some projects still use LIB_SUFFIX and LIB_INSTALL_DIR. They are all FTBFS now. This change was done without proper announcement. Please revert or make it a system-wide change. [1]: https://s