On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:34:59 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> > 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}.
Yes, and the Red Hat engineer would not change that anyway unless there
were good reason.
The fedora.us documents don't say anywhere that $RPM_BUILD_ROOT would be
"better than" or "more correct than" %buildroot. They just say that
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT is preferred at fedora.us and give the reason why that is
the case.
> 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.
With your early replies you started a not so friendly sounding
policy debate, e.g. in
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402261717460.2334@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
and you didn't stop at $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs. %buildroot.
--
