$RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs. %buildroot (was: Re: potential candidates for contribution)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:15:36 +0100, Rudolf Kastl wrote:

> > > > Doesn't use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%buildroot consistently.
> > > 
> > > is that really an issue?
> > 
> > It's in the Packaging Guidelines, so yes it's an issue.
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#head-
> > d0ada6130cf40be1244d34cc44fc38d34dd00db8
> 
> ya i just asked that question for the trivial reason that doesnt make a
> difference at all besides some aestetic value ;).
> id see more sense if one of the styles would be preferred else its a mix
> up again repo wide. 

Fedora.us has tried to take that route before. Based on this message by
Jeff Johnson,

  http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-April/001155.html

$RPM_BUILD_ROOT had been made an item in the fedora.us QA checklist. But
this has be re-evaluated several months later when individual contributors
and observers within the community, who prefer %buildroot for sake of
readability, complained because the QA checklist created a blurred picture
of what is mandatory and what is not. Since then, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT has been
the preferred form in the "packaging hints" documentation, and using %buildroot
is permitted. This item has been revisited for the Fedora Extras documentation.

[As a side-note, using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT has been particularly dangerous in
a few cases, where it appeared in scriptlets.]