rpmlint on Fedora Core development rpms

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:32:08 +0100, Florian La Roche wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:13:11PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:55:22 +0100, Florian La Roche wrote:
> > 
> > > I have put together a quick hack to run "rpmlint" on the current
> > > Fedora Core development rpms. I found a "%__mkfontdir" in OpenOffice
> > > and a "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in the octave rpm and have filed bugzilla
> > > reports on those two.
> > 
> > Please explain or post the bug numbers, because the "octave" component
> > in Fedora Core and Raw Hide returns zarro boogs. Anything wrong about
> 
> #112746 on bugzilla.redhat.com

Filed about RHEL 3. Interesting.

> > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT? Fedora.us guidelines prefer $RPM_BUILD_ROOT over
> > %{buildroot}, because the former has been described as being much more
> > official (though the latter is unlikely to be removed, isn't it?).
> 
> Are you reviewing this per rpm or do you have automated scripts? 

Automated scripts that would examine all packages in a repository would
make sense only if there were strict policies which are accepted by all
packagers. The primary part of your bug report is about $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
in a post scriplet. That's an issue, of course.

> Why would you bother how it is done unless it gives a broken rpm on
> installed machines?

Well, I don't, as long as the package builds and works. You need to
understand that hardly anyone would disapprove a package because it used
macros. But consistency is nice, whereas some packages are submitted with
a mixture of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. And btw, I must admit (and
I've done that before) I don't really understand comments like this:
http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-April/001155.html

Also, if it is agreed on using either one in all spec files, one can tune
custom helper scripts.

And of course, you want to avoid that one packager prefers %buildroot and
replaces every $RPM_BUILD_ROOT he finds and when a different packager
prepares a major package update (or a development version), he changes
every %buildroot back because he finds it ugly or anything like that.

--