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.