[Fedora-packaging] Re: Refining today's "don't touch system fs" guideline

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 11:14 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:56:39AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 10:33 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:25:36AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 09:33 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: 
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 06:06:11AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > >  E.g. there exist packages, which want/need to be built "multi-staged",
> > > > > > with %build containing (often: temporary) installs to %{buildroot}.
> > > > > > In some (very rare) occasions, packages even require "building" inside
> > > > > > of %buildroot.
> > > > > 
> > > > > These are exactly the broken packages that I want to cater with the
> > > > > proposed changes!
> > > > There ain't anything broken with these packages ;)
> > 
> > Then I can't avoid replying a bit clearer:
> > 
> > * The issue you are trying to address is not related at all to our
> > original problem ("free of side-effects")
> 
> So? Is that the only problem we are interested in solving in this
> group? What kind of childish argument is that? Let's become
> constructive again.
Pardon, in which world are you living? Being opposed to a proposal is
considered to be destructive?

I am saying your extension to the proposal doesn't solve any problem, it
introduces NEW problems, that's why I am opposed to it.

> > * Your proposal does not solve an actual technical problem, to the
> > contrary, it artificially introduces new ones.
> 
> As said, you're entitled to your opinion. As well as others like
> myself are entitled to the opinion that packages writing into
> %{buildroot} at any other stage that %install are broken.
> 
> If you continue to stiffly argue on technical grounds we'll end up
> doing all in %prep. There is no technical reason not to do everything
> there, right? No side-effects, the binary results are the same and so
> on. You'll probably start removing comments next, since they is no
> technically needed.
Right!

The %prep/%build/%install separation is an artificial separation based
on the assumption that all packages have a build model supporting this
3-staged building model.

Reality is: Most GNU packages do, but this doesn't apply in general.
Not all packages have a "natural separation" fitting into this model.

There are packages for which %prep/%build/%install can be collapsed into
one step (e.g. by simply untarring into %RPM_BUILD_ROOT[1], instead of
copying them around through the different stage), there are others for
which %build consists of several stages with installation of subpackages
into temporary locations.

Ralf

[1] Very handy and effective for packages consisting of several 10MBs.