Jarod Wilson wrote:
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> Dave Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> > Dave Jones wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>> > > > I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec
file
>>> > > > at the beginning:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > %define allowup 1
>>> > > > %define allowsmp 1
>>> > > > %define allowpae 1
>>> > > > %define allowxen 1
>>> > > > %define allowdoc 1
>>> > > > %define allowdump 1
>>> > > > %define allowheaders 1
>>> > > > %define allowdebug 1
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Then, after all the automatic enable/disable of various
options is done,
>>> > > > turn off everything that's not allowed.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > This would make it much easier to change what gets built.
[...]
>>> But I've not objection to making it easier for people who don't
follow
>>> my workflow and do things differently.
>> Rather than wasting Chuck's time implementing this, what say a
>> lower-level grunt like myself try to implement something along these
>> lines? :) I've got a few ideas on how to do it using either %bcond or
>> %with{,out}...
> You understand rpm better than I do, so go for it. I'd use Dave's method
> but an RPM is so much more convenient...
Cool, I'm on it...
There are a few ways to approach this...
The minimalist approach that comes to mind is to make all the %define
build* bits all set to 1/enabled by default, and only flip them to
disabled where appropriate, so they'd be equivalent to your allow* idea,
in that if you disable them at the top of the spec, they'd stay disabled.
The all-out approach is to implement support for --with/--without on the
rpmbuild line. Nice to have, but adds complexity/legibility issues to
the spec (not that this isn't already a very hard to read spec...), and
I'm not sure if I'd actually use it or not.
Any strong preference for one route or the other? (Or yet another)
--
Jarod Wilson
jwilson(a)redhat.com