Parsing bcond conditions

[fes0j]

Description

While regular macros can be set and evaluated, I didn't manage to the same with bcon. reference
Example:

%bcond_without perl-libs
%bcond check 1
%bcond_with tests

%if %{with perl-libs}
BuildRequires:  perl-libs(x86-64) = 4:5.40.1-515.fc41
%endif

If there is a way to set these and evaluate sections based on their value, I'm happy to know! This also ties in with #231

One workaround is the use of rpmspec, for example:

rpmspec --without perl-libs -P test.spec

results in a specfile without the BuildRequires: perl-libs...

Benefit

This would allow a more broad usage in handling specfiles.

Importance

No response

Workaround

• There is an existing workaround that can be used until this feature is implemented.

Participation

• I am willing to submit a pull request for this issue. (Packit team is happy to help!)

[nforro]

What is the expectation here? To have %bcond, %bcond_with and %bcond_without macros available for manipulation in a manner similar to macro definitions? Or about condition evaluation and "emulating" the --with/--without arguments? If the latter, then you can simply define a corresponding macro, e.g. _without_perl-libs or _with_tests.

[fes0j]

Yes the former. I'd like to have them as a list similar to the macros. I assume we would need to extend the parsing along the lines of %sections?

[nforro]

I assume we would need to extend the parsing along the lines of %sections?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

As in essence %bcond is a special case of MacroDefinition, I would treat and parse it similarly (maybe even derive from MacroDefinition and keep the parsing common).