[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Fedora-packaging] Request to drop %(%{__id_u} -n) in preferred buildroot


I think the `preferred buildroot' is not really making sense. The
above has developed historically out of a misunderstanding in ancient
buildroot times.

When people were building as root and BuildRoots were defined as
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root, some considered "root" to mean
the uid of the builder. Later %release was added and some replaced
root with `id -un`. Even later some realized that root was referring
to the BuildRoot and in order to play safe added both.

I'm using %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root in my
packages and someone is now nitpicking on why not using the preferred
BuildRoot as given in the guidelines. Instead of locally fighting a
BuildRoot battle, I'd better get the guidelines fixed ;)

Also consider what this really is about: Deambiguifying the BuildRoot
per package makes sense as there may be several build processes
sharing the same filesystem (either locally or through NFS), but
deambiguifying the build user, too, means that we assume that the same
EVR package will be possibly built on the same filesystem by
different users? And even simultaneously?

It makes more sense to include a conditional epoch or target/arch in
the buildroot that the builder. In fact the best thing for a
buildsystem is to override the buildroot adding a build-id to it
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpIiBHpGZssn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]