On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 09:21:15AM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 20:53:21 +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > Recently introduced as part of [1].
> >
> > We can skip the meson part for this one, and deal with everything
> > in the spec file only.
> >
> > Test pipeline: https://gitlab.com/abologna/libvirt/-/pipelines/1176890275
> >
> > [1] https://lists.libvirt.org/archives/list/devel@lists.libvirt.org/thread/DKS4AEXZIEFLSAK7NEWZLBF6QSQL54N2/
>
> Except for 1/3 (which I acked) I think this series is a little bit too
> spec-centric. We can do a lot of things just in the spec file, but
> having meson options still makes sense for people not building rpms.
> Whether we use that option in our spec file or handle it differently is
> another question, but I would vote against removing the meson option.
It's not always clear-cut.
A meson option is definitely necessary when it affects how the code
is built, or when we want something to be disabled by default while
giving user a convenient way to enable it. Having some non-trivial
logic deciding whether or not it should be enabled is also a hint
that something should be a meson option.
In this case, it's enabled by default and the way to undo its effects
after the file is simply to delete a single file. Doesn't quite
justify introducing yet another meson option just for it IMO.
Anyway, I just put this out there to see how people reacted to it. If
the option remains, so be it. I just think we could do without :)
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@lists.libvirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.libvirt.org