[Fedora-packaging] Re: Stopping the mandatory buildroot insanity

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Feb 22 20:21:38 UTC 2007

spot asked me to draft something in the wiki about pushing all
responsibility to (grown-up) packagers while still presenting a couple
of sane buildroots as a guideline.

The outcome is on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/BuildRoot:

> [[Anchor(BuildRoot)]]
> == Build root tag ==
> The ''Build``Root'' MUST be below %{_tmppath} and MUST use %{name}, %{version} and %{release}. It also may make use of ''mktemp'' since this is guaranteed to exist on any system. Other than that packagers are free to use any sane ''Build``Root''.
> The ''recommended'' values for the ''Build``Root'' tag are (in descending order of preference)
> {{{
> %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
> }}}

At one point, this was a mandatory value, but it is now left to the packager.

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> So we voted on a new *mandatory* buildroot. By now people saw that the
> previous *mandatory* buildroot entered the guidelines and started
> blocking new packages requiring the old *mandatory* buildroot.
> I don't know what fesco did last week on ratifying or not the new
> buildroot, and either way people will think differently on any single
> buildroot. Perhaps buildroots are the most unimportant piece of s**t
> with the most polarized parties.
> Now who's idea was it to have a *MANDATORY* buildroot at all?</rhetoric>
> Most of the FPC are fed up and have often stated that the buildroot
> guidelines should be simple "If it works, have it".
> Plain and simple:
>   Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines
>   and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion*
> +1
> The first other five positive voters get a free beer when I meet
> them (we never said that committee members could not be bribed, or do
> we need a guideline for that? ;)
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/20070222/11bf3d89/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list