On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:23 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 05:45:57 -0400, Matej Cepl (mcepl) wrote:
> > Modified Files:
> > cycle.spec
> > Log Message:
> > Changed BuildRoot to more sane value, now it is allowed.
>
> > -BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> > +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
>
> More sane? No. It is an immature hack. If you ever need --short-circuit -bi
> with such a buildroot, you arrive in mktemp hell.
>
Hmm. Perhaps you should take this up with FESCo and/or FPC, then. The
BuildRoot that Matej changed it to is one of the preferred listed in the
Package Guidelines on the wiki:
"The BuildRoot value MUST be below %{_tmppath}/ and MUST contain
at least %{name}, %{version} and %{release}. It may invoke
mktemp since this is guaranteed to exist on every system. From
there, packagers are expected to use a sane BuildRoot.
The recommended values for the BuildRoot tag are (in descending
order of preference) :
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
At one point, the second was a mandatory value, but it is now
left to the packager to decide. If unsure, simply pick the
first."
Thanks.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF & EFF Member
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/
About: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PeterGordon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
