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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Feb 20 19:59:09 UTC 2007

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:57:48AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:20 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> writes:
> > 
> > AT> Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines
> > AT> and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion*
> > 
> > -1
> -1
> This puts us back where we started. It was a suggestion until recently.
> The fact that it wasn't mandatory just confused reviewers and made
> people debate the issue over and over inside of bugzilla.

which is the same now when a half-hearted buildroot is made
mandatory. If you want to make something mandatory it has to be
something worth doing so.

The buildroot that only covers a seldom corner case of multiple users
building the same package while ignoring the far more common use case
of building i386 and x86_64 on x86_64 (for F7 we're making even more
multilib developping noise) is just not worth putting in specfiles
lest to cast it into an iron mandatory part.

> Let's move forward:
> 1) Make a clear rule on a buildroot value that fixes the technical
> issues.

We made that rule. BTW was it ratified? Still it will see opposition
just like the id -un rule. And any other buildroot is suggested.

So let us just stop suggesting a buildroot (or at least stop dictating
one). "If it works, it's OK". And any other funny corner case can
indeed bend buildroots at will, right?
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/20070220/a8c8a8d4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list