[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       rpm-users
Subject:    Re: rpmio not compiling
From:       Anders_F_Björklund <afb () rpm5 ! org>
Date:       2011-08-10 13:25:49
Message-ID: F64E46A8-B0B4-46F5-8425-A9720FC6C9BB () rpm5 ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Jeff Johnson wrote:

>> It came from splitting vendor configuration into autotools configuration:
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rpm/+spec/rpm-split-vendor-config-in-autofu
>> 
>> Actual config is the same.
>> 
>> Not sure it's a good idea.
>> 
> Could you be a bit more specific about what isn't a good idea?

I'm not sure that moving from setting preprocessor macros to
autoconf variables was needed, both for RPM_VENDOR and these ?

i.e. using a --enable-rpmvercmp-digits-beat-alpha versus just
setting -DRPMVERCMP_DIGITS_BEAT_ALPHA=1 in CPPFLAGS directly.

...
> But somehow per-vendor configuration needs to be merged/dropped imho: blaming
> RPM (and me) for bugs and lack of support on code that isn't well used/tested,
> and where "vendor support" isn't an actuality, is, well, not such a good idea.

Right, I actually think the move from vendor to config is
a good idea - more uncertain about the cpp vs configure...

But obviously the "VENDOR" file isn't used anymore, and
the defined(RPM_VENDOR_*) are getting crowded for some.

The original idea of moving stuff from downstream vendor
patches to upstream conditional code was sound, I think.

But it doesn't help with the problem (= different code),
it just makes it more obvious when looking at the source.

--anders

______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager                                    http://rpm5.org
User Communication List                             rpm-users@rpm5.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]