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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Feb 27 16:12:48 UTC 2007

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:21:38PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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:

Matthias Saou made some changes cleaning up my e-glish and clarifying
the one and other bit. In case you had made up your mind already and
don't want to feel like voting for something changing underneath your
feet I placed the changed content bits underneath the original
proposal, see also


> > [[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 ''!BuildRoot'' value MUST be below `%{_tmppath}/` and MUST
   contain at least `%{name}`, `%{version}` and `%{release}`. It may
   invoke `mktemp` since this is guaranteed to exist on every
   system. From there, packagers are expected to use a sane

> > 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.

=> At one point, the second was a mandatory value, but it is now left
   to the packager to decide. If unsure, simply pick the first.
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/20070227/240a0164/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list