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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Fri Oct 13 08:33:36 UTC 2006

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 ;)

You're entitled to think so, yes. But they are broken nonetheless. :)

> They do not leave files around, nor do they do anything harmful. They
> simply do not fit into the constraints you are trying to set up.

Same is true for a package doing everything in %prep. Does that
justify it just the same? And these are not constraints *I* am trying
to set up, this is how rpm was designed to be used, the constraints
are just to make sure it is used that way.

> > If you want to do staged installs during build time you *HAVE* to do
> > so in builddir, not buildroot.
> Why? rpmbuild and the spec have full access to both directories and can
> read/write to both.

rpmbuild has access to a lot of other directories, the guidelines are
there to restrict this access to the sane set of directories.

> > Nope, both ways are a sloppy way of packaging. It should be
> > forbidden. Stage your builds in %build/%{builddir}, don't build in
> > %install and don't touch %{buildroot} in %prep/%build. This should be
> > carved in stone.
> <sigh/> IMO, you are trying to overengineer something.

Well, in your opinion. That's the nice thing about a democratic
institution, everybody may have an opinion and need not agree with the
other. Still if enough opinions are gathered we'll have a functional
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061013/488bef32/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list