On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 18:45, Ville Skyttà wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 17:59, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> > Shrug, he's not alone in that. I was against *mandating* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> It's not mandatory. It just happens to be in the specfile templates as
> well as recommended in the QA checklist because of its "official" status
> according to jbj's comments.
"should be replaced with $RPM_BUILD_ROOT", combined with QA complaining
about %{buildroot} usage makes it mandatory in practise. If it's not
supposed to be mandatory then the QA checklist should say "check for
consistent use of %{buildroot} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" instead of what's
there now.
It's not like things like this are the biggest deal in existence, it's
just IMHO an arbitrary rule which to me are somewhat irritanting.
- Panu -
