Packaging guidelines: buildroot
Panu Matilainen
pmatilai at laiskiainen.org
Thu May 18 05:54:38 UTC 2006
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Axel Thimm (Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net) said:
>> Makes sense, it will make an end to the fantasy of BuildRoot name
>> inventes (like adding the uid ...).
>>
>> But what happens when a package has no BuildRoot and neither does a
>> macro for it exist? Would it potentially eat the user's home?
>
> rpmbuild: Fatal, no build root defined
>
> (I doubt it does this now...)
IIRC it currently just tries to use / as buildroot if not defined
anywhere, which is utterly nonsensible.
It'd make perfect sense if it behaved like that: if no buildroot has been
set in spec or macros, error out, and then specify a sane buildroot in the
default macros. I requested this on rpm-list a few years ago but got shot
down with "yes I agree but legacy <mumble jumble>"s.
So yes, pretty please, my +10 for this. The current situation of people
doing the right thing and using non / buildroot having to put in extra
cruft in their specs is just silly.
- Panu -
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list