Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] add --confdir option to configure

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 10:43 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:34:06AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 03/19/2012 10:31 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:14:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>>On 03/19/2012 09:47 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >>>>>This series change the Makefile to use $(confdir) instead of
> >>>>>$(sysconfdir)/qemu, and allows the full config path configurable instead 
> >>>>>of
> >>>>>forcing the use of $(sysconfdir)/qemu.
> >>>>
> >>>>What's the use case here?  Is this to allow $(sysconfdir)/qemu-kvm?
> >>>
> >>>Yes. On RHEL we usually package qemu-kvm only, but we try to avoid
> >>>conflicts in case other flavors of qemu be provided by third-parties
> >>>(read: EPEL).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I'd rather we use a PACKAGE_NAME define to do that and have qemu-kvm
> >>>>change PACKAGE_NAME.
> >>>
> >>>I tried to mimic --mandir, --datadir, --docdir, and all other options
> >>>that expect full paths instead of trying to building one itself.
> >>>
> >>>A --package-name option could be provided to make it easier to override
> >>>all the defaults at the same time, but I don't see why not include an
> >>>option to define the full path for confdir, just like we allow for
> >>>datadir, docdir, and mandir.
> >>
> >>No, I'm not suggesting --package-name, I'm suggesting that qemu-kvm
> >>would carry a patch to configure that changed a fixed PACKAGE_NAME
> >>define.
> >
> >Are you really suggesting that forcing downstream to carry a patch is
> >better than having a configure option?
> 
> To change the package name?  Absolutely!

Why?

> 
> >If you suggest making it configurable using a variable on the 'make'
> >command-line it would be OK, but I kind of hoped that no modern software
> >project would ever require packagers to use configure-by-sed methods to
> >set build parameters.
> 
> Changing the package name is a Big Deal.  It's not that we should
> provide a friendly interface for.

Why is it a Big Deal?

> 
> If you're already a downstream, I don't see the problem carrying a
> one liner for something this significant.

Why it is so significant?

Why is /etc/qemu so different from mandir, docdir, and datadir?

-- 
Eduardo