On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:13:06 -0400, Michel Salim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some upstream developers recommend that their software (thinking of LLVM
> and PLT Scheme, but there must be others) *not* be configured and built
> at the top-level source directory (typically recommending using build/,
> object/ or some such).
>
> When this is needed, currently the Fedora packager has to revert to
> calling the configure script directly, foregoing the %configure macro,
> and copying as much of the configure settings by hand. Would it be a
> desirable feature to, say, be able to declare
>
> %define configure_relative_path ..
>
> and then have %configure use the value of that instead of './' when
> calling the actual configure script?
Try this in your spec (substitute SOMEPATH appropriately):
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-22-2008, 06:26 PM
Mamoru Tasaka
%configure assuming in-source-tree builds
Michel Salim wrote, at 06/23/2008 02:13 AM +9:00:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Some upstream developers recommend that their software (thinking of LLVM
and PLT Scheme, but there must be others) *not* be configured and built
at the top-level source directory (typically recommending using build/,
object/ or some such).
When this is needed, currently the Fedora packager has to revert to
calling the configure script directly, foregoing the %configure macro,
and copying as much of the configure settings by hand. Would it be a
desirable feature to, say, be able to declare
%define configure_relative_path ..
and then have %configure use the value of that instead of './' when
calling the actual configure script?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-22-2008, 09:43 PM
Michel Salim
%configure assuming in-source-tree builds
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michel Salim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some upstream developers recommend that their software (thinking of LLVM
> and PLT Scheme, but there must be others) *not* be configured and built
> at the top-level source directory (typically recommending using build/,
> object/ or some such).
>
> When this is needed, currently the Fedora packager has to revert to
> calling the configure script directly, foregoing the %configure macro,
> and copying as much of the configure settings by hand. Would it be a
> desirable feature to, say, be able to declare
>
Thanks to Michael and Mamoru -- should these be listed in our packaging
guidelines?
- --
Michel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-22-2008, 11:11 PM
Patrice Dumas
%configure assuming in-source-tree builds
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 05:43:49PM -0400, Michel Salim wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks to Michael and Mamoru -- should these be listed in our packaging
> guidelines?
I don't think so, but you can go ahead and add it to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingTricks
--
Pat
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
06-23-2008, 02:39 PM
Peter Jones
%configure assuming in-source-tree builds
Michel Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michel Salim wrote:
Hi all,
Some upstream developers recommend that their software (thinking of LLVM
and PLT Scheme, but there must be others) *not* be configured and built
at the top-level source directory (typically recommending using build/,
object/ or some such).
When this is needed, currently the Fedora packager has to revert to
calling the configure script directly, foregoing the %configure macro,
and copying as much of the configure settings by hand. Would it be a
desirable feature to, say, be able to declare
Thanks to Michael and Mamoru -- should these be listed in our packaging
guidelines?
I'd really rather see something like your initial suggestion.
--
Peter
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
08-11-2008, 10:18 AM
Stepan Kasal
%configure assuming in-source-tree builds
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:39:49AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
>> Michel Salim wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some upstream developers recommend that their software (thinking of LLVM
>>> and PLT Scheme, but there must be others) *not* be configured and built
>>> at the top-level source directory (typically recommending using build/,
>>> object/ or some such).
>>>
>>> When this is needed, currently the Fedora packager has to revert to
>>> calling the configure script directly, foregoing the %configure macro,
>>> and copying as much of the configure settings by hand. Would it be a
>>> desirable feature to, say, be able to declare
>>>
>>> %define configure_relative_path
> I'd really rather see something like [this] suggestion.
Agreed. Filed as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/458644
[This is suitable to be submitted upstream, but rpm.org does not have
a bug tracker, it features only lists, and I did not care to
subscribe before cc'ing this mail, so I guess my chanced to get
heared there are low. They read fedora bugzilla, though. ;-) ]
Stepan Kasal
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
08-11-2008, 10:22 AM
"Vasile Gaburici"
%configure assuming in-source-tree builds
Poppler's spec does this:
%build
pushd %{name}-%{version}
# despair
sed -i s/qt3/qt-3.3/g configure
%configure
--disable-static
--enable-cairo-output
--enable-poppler-qt
--enable-poppler-qt4
--enable-xpdf-headers
make %{?_smp_mflags}
popd
Is this not good enough for some reason?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Stepan Kasal <skasal@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:39:49AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
>>> Michel Salim wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Some upstream developers recommend that their software (thinking of LLVM
>>>> and PLT Scheme, but there must be others) *not* be configured and built
>>>> at the top-level source directory (typically recommending using build/,
>>>> object/ or some such).
>>>>
>>>> When this is needed, currently the Fedora packager has to revert to
>>>> calling the configure script directly, foregoing the %configure macro,
>>>> and copying as much of the configure settings by hand. Would it be a
>>>> desirable feature to, say, be able to declare
>>>>
>>>> %define configure_relative_path
>
>> I'd really rather see something like [this] suggestion.
>
> Agreed. Filed as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/458644
>
> [This is suitable to be submitted upstream, but rpm.org does not have
> a bug tracker, it features only lists, and I did not care to
> subscribe before cc'ing this mail, so I guess my chanced to get
> heared there are low. They read fedora bugzilla, though. ;-) ]
>
> Stepan Kasal
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
%configure assuming in-source-tree builds
