On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:25:31PM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:13:22PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > If people have additional reasons that macroizing all directory paths make > > sense, please let us know (here or as a comment in the ticket). Then FPC > > can decide whether to relax this rule or update the rule with information > > about why we have it in place. > > The point of the macros is to ensure consistent use of paths between > the configure, install, and packaging stages so that builds don't > break if there are changes in any part of the chain. > Added to the comments as a reason to keep macroizing paths a requirement. > %configure uses those macros. If spec files were allowed to not use > the macros, then changes to %configure would break the spec files. So > if you are going to remove the requirement for the macros in spec > files, then the behavior of %configure should not be reliant on the > macros either. In fact, all use of such macros should be removed (not > disallowed, but removed from use in the standard build macros). > Not so sure that the consistency argument is so strong that this is the case. As long as the macros used by the configure script and the hardcoded paths used by the spec file are the same, nothing is broken. If the macros change, it's going to be because we want to change the paths that they point to for all packages. So we'd have to update any packages that use hardcoded directories regardless of whether the hardcoded directories are also used with %configure or not. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpw_m5_3eqjt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
