[Fedora-packaging] GConf snippets suggestion

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 22:21 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 10:19 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 09:45 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> 
> > > It tries to emphasize the proper (IMHO) --disable-schemas-install method
> > > of disabling schemas installation on the build host vs the prevalent
> > > GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL hack (again IMHO)
> > > 
> > Could you explain why the configure script option should be considered
> > canonical and the environment variable a hack?
> 
> Its should be canonical because its part of the AM_GCONF_SOURCE_2
> autoconf macro which in turn is used by perhaps 99% of all gconf-using
> packages out there.
> Now, some use the macro but don't honor the automake conditional that
> --disable-schemas-install sets. This IMO should be considered an
> upstream bug.
> 
> As to why using an overly wordy environment variable to negate a
> specifically invoked action of a tool should be considered a hack? I'll
> leave that to your good taste. 
> I personally consider the existence of this mechanism a GConf birth
> defect that's been carried for too long.

Thanks!  I've started work on integrating that into the Draft for the
next ScriptletSnippets page [1]_ and added it to the schedule [2]_.  I'd
like to take a look at some packages in Extras to make sure that most
upstream packages will work with this suggestion and then we'll discuss
this on this mailing list or in one of the weekly IRC meetings.

[1]_ http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets
[2]_ http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060823/166747b8/attachment.sig>