Prelink success story :)

[Dag Wieers]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Panu Matilainen wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 13:30, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:49:36 +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >> Use of %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > > > 
> > > > > This is on purpose, %{buildroot} is more readable.
> > > > 
> > > > Glad someone agrees with me on that.
> > > 
> > > Basically, currently it _does not matter_ whether you use %buildroot or
> > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT because neither one is deprecated. Just don't use both at
> > > once.
> > 
> > Be careful Michael, you're now questioning official fedora.us policy.
> 
> Shrug, he's not alone in that. I was against *mandating* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> instead of %{buildroot} all the way and still am (simply because
> %{buildroot} is faster to type and also mixes better with all the
> %{_libdir} macros and such visually), and there were/are others as well.

I know you were and I've seen more people against that policy than in 
favor of it on the mailinglist.


> OTOH that's what a community project is about: you get to express your
> opinion and vote, doesn't mean your vote is the one that counts.
> Compromises, in other words.

Well, I'd like to see the votes again ;)

As my impression was that decisions were made on IRC and/or mainly based 
on expressions by a famous Red Hat developer I dare not mention ;)

We've got some others like the infamous 'Epoch must be included even if 
zero' decision, or the 'Source-tag may not have macros' decision, or the
'We dont like to mix repositories' decision and countless others.

In the end I think those people that cared, didn't vote anymore. I know I 
didn't.

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]