Problems with core review

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:30, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Why is it? You put a lot of emphasis into your sentence. Instead, rehash
> why it is bad, please. There are pros and cons. Why do you fight
> $RPM_SOURCE_DIR?
>
> Why rpmlint looks out for $RPM_SOURCE_DIR becomes clear when you
> display its explanation. Look:
>
>   $ rpmlint -I use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
>   use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR :
>   You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have
> to use a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
>
> Another pitfall inexperienced packagers can run into with $RPM_SOURCE_DIR
> has been explained in an older message by me in this thread. Nevertheless,
> using $RPM_SOURCE_DIR can be beneficial in some cases.

Gee, I had assumed we were all reading along, but since you pointed it out 
anyway, yes, that is the main reason why we don't like RPM_SOURCE_DIR to be 
used.  This is one of those things where it is /ok/ in some situations, not 
in others.  By now, I really don't give a crap what Joe does in his spec, he 
was given reasons why RPM_SOURCE_DIR usage is bad in some cases, why we'd 
like things to be consistant across packages.  If he /still/ doesn't want to 
play along, there is only so much beating you can do on a dead horse over a 
silly issue like this.

Clearly we need to have something in the guidelines about use of 
RPM_SOURCE_DIR or else this will come up over and over again.  However I lack 
the energy/time to push that through right now :/

-- 
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-maintainers/attachments/20070208/fc47728b/attachment.sig>