On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:30, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Why is it? You put a lot of emphasis into your sentence. Instead, rehash
> why it is bad, please. There are pros and cons. Why do you fight
> $RPM_SOURCE_DIR?
>
> Why rpmlint looks out for $RPM_SOURCE_DIR becomes clear when you
> display its explanation. Look:
>
> $ rpmlint -I use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
> use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR :
> You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have
> to use a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
>
> Another pitfall inexperienced packagers can run into with $RPM_SOURCE_DIR
> has been explained in an older message by me in this thread. Nevertheless,
> using $RPM_SOURCE_DIR can be beneficial in some cases.
Gee, I had assumed we were all reading along, but since you pointed it out
anyway, yes, that is the main reason why we don't like RPM_SOURCE_DIR to be
used. This is one of those things where it is /ok/ in some situations, not
in others. By now, I really don't give a crap what Joe does in his spec, he
was given reasons why RPM_SOURCE_DIR usage is bad in some cases, why we'd
like things to be consistant across packages. If he /still/ doesn't want to
play along, there is only so much beating you can do on a dead horse over a
silly issue like this.
Clearly we need to have something in the guidelines about use of
RPM_SOURCE_DIR or else this will come up over and over again. However I lack
the energy/time to push that through right now :/
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpavGeY8XJzd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
