On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 09:21:15AM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 20:53:21 +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > Recently introduced as part of [1]. > > > > We can skip the meson part for this one, and deal with everything > > in the spec file only. > > > > Test pipeline: https://gitlab.com/abologna/libvirt/-/pipelines/1176890275 > > > > [1] https://lists.libvirt.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/DKS4AEXZIEFLSAK7NEWZLBF6QSQL54N2/ > > Except for 1/3 (which I acked) I think this series is a little bit too > spec-centric. We can do a lot of things just in the spec file, but > having meson options still makes sense for people not building rpms. > Whether we use that option in our spec file or handle it differently is > another question, but I would vote against removing the meson option. It's not always clear-cut. A meson option is definitely necessary when it affects how the code is built, or when we want something to be disabled by default while giving user a convenient way to enable it. Having some non-trivial logic deciding whether or not it should be enabled is also a hint that something should be a meson option. In this case, it's enabled by default and the way to undo its effects after the file is simply to delete a single file. Doesn't quite justify introducing yet another meson option just for it IMO. Anyway, I just put this out there to see how people reacted to it. If the option remains, so be it. I just think we could do without :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
