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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] BuildRoot



thias spam spam spam spam spam spam spam egg and spam freshrpms net
(Matthias Saou) writes:

> 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?

Yes; 'id -u' is unneeded clutter. A custom %_tmppath is much better and
secure.


> 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?

To make an BuildRoot: optional/discouraged, some changes in rpm would be
needed:

* 'rpmbuild' fails to run as root
* 'rpmbuild' fails when %buildroot is empty/undefined
* rpm ships with a proper default %buildroot

* the points above are true on all supported platforms

I think, FC9 or FC10 would be a realistic target date.



Enrico

Attachment: pgpZWjJ9p0Vdn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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