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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: BuildRoot

Axel Thimm wrote :

> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:36:25PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Your and Thias' %buildroot regresses in comparison to the
> > "recommendation". It diverges from the "recommendation" and
> > introduces further non-deterministical behavior.
> > 
> > That's reason why I refuse to approve your packages.
> Rex, where is that cluestick again? ;)

Oh, and please pass it on when you're done! :-)

Ralf wrote in another reply :

> > 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.
> Another example of a how views can vary: 
> To me *this* is a very extreme case, because apart of very few package
> almost nothing in FE is being build for several targets.

If you're bringing the FE packaging back into the debate... err... it's
weird since if we consider only FE, this is clearly a non issue.

"Much ado about nothing" if you ask me.

My final suggestions :

1) Bring up the default BuildRoot guideline issue at the next FESCO
meeting. My suggestion for a possible change would be to have something
like this in addition to the 'preferred' BuildRoot suggestion :

"BuildRoot must be a sub-directory of "%{_tmppath}" and contain at
least "%{name}" in its name."

2) Continue discussing simplifications and improvements for the long
term which require changes ASAP. Typically like trying to drop the
explicit BuildRoot from the spec files, set sane defaults for %clean,
%defattr... basically avoid identical iterations across all spec files.


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 : 0.39 0.30 0.28

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