On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Axel Thimm (Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx) said:
Makes sense, it will make an end to the fantasy of BuildRoot name
inventes (like adding the uid ...).
But what happens when a package has no BuildRoot and neither does a
macro for it exist? Would it potentially eat the user's home?
rpmbuild: Fatal, no build root defined
(I doubt it does this now...)
IIRC it currently just tries to use / as buildroot if not defined
anywhere, which is utterly nonsensible.
It'd make perfect sense if it behaved like that: if no buildroot has been
set in spec or macros, error out, and then specify a sane buildroot in the
default macros. I requested this on rpm-list a few years ago but got shot
down with "yes I agree but legacy <mumble jumble>"s.
So yes, pretty please, my +10 for this. The current situation of people
doing the right thing and using non / buildroot having to put in extra
cruft in their specs is just silly.
- Panu -
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
