Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:56:35PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
ping, any comment or objection?
I'll work on a patch for epel-release to implement a %{epel} macro, in case anyone was waiting for implementation details.
Seems like it can't hurt much to have such a macro defined by the epel-release package. Could you give an example of the kind of logic you'd use this for?
Sure. My primary motivation is that I'd like be able keep fedora/rhel kde packaging merged in fedora's git repos. *Normally*, rhel kde packaging disables some features ( based on %rhel macro), but I'd like to be able (re)enable those via some "extras" macro, like %epel. This is one approach redhat's kde maintainers agreed would be acceptable.
How would enabling features at build-time contional on the presence of epel-release and this macro help? Will you be building in two environments and creating two repositories--one for RHEL binaries and one for RHEL+EPEL binaries?
Yes, yes, respectively. See my first post in this thread, regarding a KDE for RHEL7 COPR.
"My primary motivation is to simplify the task of doing something like: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/rdieter/kde4/ where I currently end up patching various .spec files (mostly to enable features due to having epel available), and I'd like to be able to minimize having to do that."
-- Rex