On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:34:10PM -0800, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 02/28/2011 12:55 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > >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. > > True, but if we kept the macros, then we could simply do a mass > rebuild instead of needing to edit %files. > Agreed. You snipped the part that I was replying to: if someone doesn't use the macros for paths, then we should ban the use of the macros for %configure. I think that would be going a bit far. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgplu7wM8ZMFV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
