Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> It came from splitting vendor configuration into autotools configuration:
>> 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.
Received on Wed Aug 10 15:26:18 2011