%buildroot vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT again (was: New package : ncftp)

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Sun Mar 6 17:51:33 UTC 2005

On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 18:17 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
>Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote :
>> On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 17:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> >So, what is it here? "Must not" or "should not"? Policy or guideline?
>> Lets go with "Must not", and "Policy". I don't want people using
>> %{buildroot} to have it randomly disappear from underneath them.
>Eek. Nor %{buildroot}, nor %{optflags} are going anywhere anytime soon. I'd
>really, really prefer to just have people keep consistent within a given
>spec file, and simply state in the guidelines that there are two valid ways
>to do the same thing.

Apparently, this was a major point of contention in the fedora.us days.

I don't want to open any old flamewars up over something so utterly
pointless. So, I'm changing my mind (I'm allowed to be wrong!), and I've
changed the PackagingGuidelines to reflect this:


Basically, the summary is this:

You can either use macros or variables. But not both. Pick one, stick to

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list