[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 02:29:27PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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?

On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 04:46:56PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 16:15 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:54:22AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > 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.

> The point you  seem to be missing, your buildroot is broken:
> buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root

No, I'm not, I added the original post above to prove I was aware of
that ;)

> This directory is NOT unique and will break if 2 or more users are
> running an rpmbuild in parallel on the same /var/tmp filesystem.

And everything will break if someone builds for i686 and i586 (e.g. a
kernel or glibc) simultaneously on the same filesystem (as the same
user), which is even worse and probably more common than two non-root
users sharing the same build server and building *exactly* the same
package EVR-wise.

> It will also break if 2 different users are running buildjobs of the
> same package consecutively and if the first one fails and leaves it
> buildroot behind.

That's what rm -fr %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install is
for. But even if it were an issue you are currently in the same more
realistic situation that the build for the i686 kernel may fail and
the next build is the one for i586 and will find the broken buildroot
from the predecessor.

I'm just saying that we are focusing on an almost non-existant corner
case obfuscating the BuildRoot while we allow failures in non-corner
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpIDtodGB0ee.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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