[Fedora-packaging] Drafts for next Tuesday

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Mon Mar 24 16:13:19 UTC 2008

>>>>> "VS" == Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> writes:

VS> -1 to any buildroot suggestion that doesn't propose implementing
VS> it internally in rpm aiming for eventual deprecation and
VS> elimination of the BuildRoot tag (and related "rm -rf"'s) in
VS> specfiles.

I have to agree.  We've been through this once already (painfully, at
that) and I don't really see the point of doing it again unless we
make real progress in getting this buildroot nonsense out of the
specfiles and into rpm.

One issue with the security argument made in the proposal is that,
while a laudable goal, the actual exposure isn't due to the buildroot
specification in Fedora packages, since we could fix all of those and
there would still be exposure when someone rebuilds packages that
don't come from Fedora.  The exposure is in the rpmbuild
infrastructure itself, and honestly I think that it would be more
productive if the security arguments were directed there.

 - J<

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list