On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:48:55 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> > If the biggest hurdle to QA is lack of common sense I don't see why
> > a non-mandatory rule is still in there.
>
> Because the list doesn't say anywhere that it would be a list of mandatory
> items.
>
> > Especially if you can't do
> > something wrong when both of 2 choices are allowed.
>
> Do you see anything more serious in the list that ought to be changed? Or
> do we spend dozens of messages on just $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs. %buildroot? The
> explanation, why $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is suggested, is linked in the
> checklist. Everybody can read where it comes from and judge by himself
> whether %buildroot might be killed without warning.
>
> > Do you still wonder why I care less ?
>
> No, I don't understand why you feel the need to discuss minor things like
> this and make a mountain out of a molehill. If not RPM_BUILD_ROOT, I'm
> sure you would find something else. I mean, even if someone modified the
> checklist today, you would not contribute any packages to fedora.us,
> because you're entirely happy with your own repository and full control
> over your own releases. Am I wrong?
Michael, please calm down. This discussion started because someone
corrected a Red Hat engineer when he used %{buildroot}.
I was just stating that if it wasn't mandatory (what I learned from you
after an ironic remark) than the fedora.us policy should change.
And then suddenly all hell break loose. Sorry, I should have not answered
your messages if I knew what would be the result. Please feel free to
ignore me in future mails, I won't make this mistake twice.
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
