On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:20:14 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> The point is that the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT recommendation isn't even consistently
> followed in the rpmmacros definitions themselves, meaning that every spec
> file is using a willy-nilly mix of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT even if
> those strings do not appear in your spec file itself. Thus the
> recommendation and checklist item is totally redundant and really deserves to
> be removed, Jeff's comments notwithstanding. If and when Jeff actually
> changes ${buildroot} basic core rpm build macros will break, and break badly,
> so the likelihood of that change happening is somewhere between slim and
> none, and Slim just left town. Of course, Jeff has surprised us
> before... :-)
Which -- except for the low-level investigation on where the rpmbuild core
uses %buildroot as opposed to $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- is what I've written
earlier, albeit with different words. There is no reason to believe that
%buildroot would be killed without a warning. But please don't expect me
to edit a Wiki before I haven't heard more voices as it is not me who
decides on the fate of such guidelines. There are so many writings in the
Wiki one can improve/enhance/modify, I could stop reviewing packages and
switch to become a documentation dude. Which I don't want.
--
