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

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:54:22AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:35:53AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 
> >> >b) put a sensible default in the guidelines
> >> 
> >> IMO, the guidelines already include a sensible default.
> > 
> >  In short id -un doesn't make sense, even epoch or target/arch
> > would make more far more sense in a guideline's BuildRoot.
> > 
> > Note that the guidelines are also there to educate people how to write
> > clean and non-obfuscated specfiles. I'm quite sure the BuildRoot is
> > cut & pasted in 99.99% of the packages making it a defacto proper
> > thing to do. If it's bogus we need to fix it and not endorse it
> > furthermore. 
> 
> It's simply my opinion that it's not worth fixing something that isn't
> broken.

It's not broken as in "fix all packages that use id -un", it just
shouldn't be promoted anymore as a default since it makes no
sense. And given that it does create workload on packager and reviewer
everytime this will come up again, let's fix it.

> > Two independent reviewer considered this a blocker for a 
> > review's acceptance (even though it's marked "preferred").
> 
> The reviewers need to be whacked with a clue-stick.  A working (non-broken)
> buildroot is *not* a blocker.

That's what I meant with "wrong education". I can't blame reviewers
for following the guidelines to the letter (and since they are
scarce, I also don't want to use any punishment on them ;).

I thought this would be an EasyFix. :/
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- 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-packaging/attachments/20060719/a5a947eb/attachment.sig>