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

[Matthias Saou]

Ralf Corsepius wrote :

> On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 10:03 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > And you missed the point that *in the context of Fedora Extras*, it's not
> > broken.
> Rebuilding rpms by users is not amongst the Fedora tasks?
> FE is living in the ivory towers of mock?
> 
> With all due respect, ....

Oops. I missed this thread and started a very similar one, since
reviewers are complaining about the same BuildRoot problem in my
packages than in Axel's.

- I'd like non-broken BuildRoots to be considered OK (this should
already be the case with "preferred" in the guidelines), and by
non-broken I mean something like "starts with %{_tmppath}/ and contains
at least a directory name unique to the package being built". Maybe the
guidelines could be updated to include something like that.

- I'd like the FUD about appending `id -u` solving the problem for
multi-user builds on the same system stop. Ralf, please : Users of a
same system will also have conflicts with %_builddir, %_rpmdir and
%_srcrpmdir by default and are *REQUIRED* to at least change their
%_topdir to get things working. Well, just have them also change their
%_tmppath as it can only be a positive thing.

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 5.90 (Test) - Linux kernel 2.6.17-1.2431.fc6
Load : 0.19 0.56 0.70