FESCo Meeting Summary for 2007-02-08

[Jesse Keating]

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 11:56, Matthias Saou wrote:
> What's the rationale behind this? I fail to see the purpose, since this
> is something that needs to be addressed better than it is currently,
> and ideally from inside rpm itself (and apparently it's being done,
> thanks Bill). It's even being subject to current discussions, like
> using mktemp for it...
>
> As far as I'm concerned, any directory inside %_tmppath with a name
> which is package _and_ version specific is fine. And before adding "user
> specific too", I'd definitely add "arch specific" as I find it more
> important, so this is a never ending and useless debate...
>
> I'm asking because the usual "you should use this buildroot" I usually
> get from people reviewing my packages has become "you must", which does
> annoy me because I fail to see the point for such a change :
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/228294

Because without using a mktemp style buildroot, there are technical risks of 
overlapping directories from either multiple users or multiple arches 
building on the same system.  Since all arguments around what BuildRoot 
should be are centered around this, we need to pick _one_ that is safe, and 
is the same as what the patches sent to rpm would use, once / if they get 
integrated.  As stated, it is a simple one line change.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20070214/7788387e/attachment.sig>