On Friday, 12 October 2007, at 15:57:01 (-0700),
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Ok, thanks. Looking at the example:
>
> %if %{?_with_ssl:1}%{!?_with_ssl:0}
>
> that's a little more complicated than it needs to be, isn't it?
>
> I've seen:
>
> %if 0%{?_with_ssl:1}
>
> And that seems to work equally well...
Either will work. "More clear" vs. "more complicated" is often in the
eye of the beholder.
> Right, but I don't want to capture the shell exit value of %(...)
> as an expression.... I want to bomb out.
I never said anything about %(...)
> I suppose I could have:
>
> %prep
> ...
> %if !<some sanity tests here>
> echo "This can't possibly be correct." 1>&2
> exit 1
> %endif
If you think that's necessary.
> That's what I wanted to do, but it got slapped down.
You'll learn over time whose advice to listen to and whose to ignore.
You may have chosen poorly. :-)
> We could add an AutobuilderHint: field to the header that wouldn't
> do anything, but that autobuilders could grovel out and use as the
> default set of arguments...
Such a tag would be completely non-portable and entirely outside the
scope of anything RPM should be managing.
Michael
--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <mej@xxxxxxxxx>
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"My program's in an infinite loop. Should I wait for it to
finish?" -- some lame luser in a Tarleton State Univ. computer lab
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
