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

[Fedora-packaging] Re: BuildRoot


On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:07:20PM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Two quickies :
> 1) The current "preferred" BuildRoot which executes "id -u" isn't
> useful when used with mach or mock. I have nothing against it, I just
> don't feel the need to use it... as it's "preferred", I should be able
> to still use any BuildRoot value I want, right? I really simply prefer
> the same, but without forking a useless "id -u" execution.
> Yet another discussion about this here :
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188461
> (nearly all my review requests change into debates regarding useless
> details... I'm surprised that no one has yet criticized the non-aligned
> header lines I use ;-))
> If the "preferred" term is changed to "mandatory" in the guidelines, I
> will abide, but continue thinking it's plain silly, and this brings us
> to...

This was discussed a couple of days ago here, check the archives. FWIW
I agree 110%.

Ralf argues that two users on a multiuser system building the same
package with the same evr would get hurt (one would look the other's
buildroot), which I consider an extreme corner case.

Furthermore currently building the same package for two archs (like
kernel i686 and kernel i586) will hurt even more, which is not a
corner case, so if we were to play it mega-safe we would had to add
arch/epoch also to it. Better keep it small, simple and functional.

Anyway it looked like half the people here considered it an optional
requirement (what "preferred" also really implied) and some would like
to make it mandatory.

> 2) Why the heck is there still the need for BuildRoot to be defined in
> each and every spec file we have!? Could we once and for all push a
> sane default value into FC6 and start considering removing it once and
> for all from all spec files by the time we reach FC10 or so?

Yes, that's the time scale, or maybe even FC110 :)

> Currently, if BuildRoot isn't defined, then "" is used

Not always, if you use %{buildroot} w/o BuildRoot: tag it expands to
literally to itself, e.g. "%{buildroot}". At least with FC5's
rpm. Maybe previously it was effectively %{nil}.

> (thus the system's "/")... years ago this might have made sense for
> someone, but nowadays I really don't think so.

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpQ4oYRR0kZc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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