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

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



On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:41:45AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 July 2006 08:29, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > 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
> > anyway.
> 
> Or what we REALLY should do is have rpm(build) supplant a standard buildroot 
> when one isn't found in the spec file, so we can REMOVE Buildroot from the 
> spec file all together and no longer have these discussions.  Instead of 
> nitpicking on how the buildroot should look, we just say 'remove buildroot 
> definitions'.  That's KISS.

I would agree, if it weren't for undefined behaviour at best when
someone uses the buildroot-less specfile on a system not supplying a
default buildroot.

In the worst case you could end up with an empty buildroot and
%install/%clean operations on the buildroot could suddenly really
happen in the live filesystem.

So, even if we get some current/future rpm version to behave as we
wish it we would need to allow for many years to pass to really start
dropping BuildRoot tags.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgppeDih1tcUM.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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