FESCo Meeting Summary for 2007-02-08

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 15 February 2007 09:49, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> So, the "upstream" rule here is violated. Instead, you want to change
> thousands of spec files because of a theoretical problem that can only
> affect users who don't set up a per user build environment on a multi-user
> system? Loyalty finds an end here. The mktemp buildroot in spec files
> would be really disappointing decision.
>
> $ rpm -qf /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros
> redhat-rpm-config-8.0.45-6
> $ rpm --eval %_tmppath
> /var/tmp
>
> could be modified more quickly than applying a bigger buildroot patch
> to the code.

Sure, that's an option.  I think the mktemp based approach found some 
problems.  We haven't ratified anything, we're open for discussion.

I was perfectly happy with a rule of "Is there a BuildRoot defined, and it 
isn't /?  Yes?  PASS"  however others within the Packaging Committee wanted 
to protect users against the scenarios you described.

-- 
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/20070215/c664f6c7/attachment.sig>