for the record: It seems there are only a few packages using it: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+repo:%5Esrc.fedoraproject.org/+%25%7B_buildrootdir%7D&patternType=regexp&sm=0 -- Michal Schorm Software Engineer Core Services - Databases Team Red Hat -- On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:12 AM Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/3/24 17:18, Eike Rathke wrote: > > Hi Panu, > > > > On Monday, 2024-06-03 15:55:09 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > >> %{_buildrootdir} is nothing packages should be referring to, in any > >> circumstance really. It's a potentially shared directory among arbitrary > >> packages (in the traditional it's ~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/ ) and putting > >> anything there can conflict with other packages being built on the system. > >> %{buildroot} is what packages should be referring to, > > > > So using %{buildroot} instead of %{_buildrootdir} would be an actual > > replacement? > > Depends on the case. If, as I suspect below and you confirm in the other > email this was never meant to be packaged, then %{buildroot} of course > is not the right place. > > > > >> or better yet, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}. > > > > Why better? > > In general, the RPM_* environment variables available to build > scriptlets are what should be used instead of macros. Because, macros > are processed while parsing the spec, which is different from actually > *building* it. For one, using the environment improves srpm > reproducibility because the local gunk like number of CPUs, the concrete > path of %buildroot etc are only visible the scriptlets where actually used. > > It's a subtle thing, took me 10+ years with rpm to grok the > recommendation I'd seen long, long, long ago. > > > > >> That said, these cases kinda appear to be something not intended to be > >> packaged at all, just "I need to put this file somewhere". That's one of the > >> many use-cases we introduced the intermediate %builddir in 4.20, under which > >> the %{buildroot} itself is. > > > > But that's _only_ available as of 4.20, so not in f39,f40, correct? > > Yes. The next best thing would be using %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir}, aka > $PWD of the build scriptlets, this is available in all rpm versions for > packages using %setup. > > - Panu - > > > Eike > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
