On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 05:56:35PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > Brian Pepple wrote : > > > Packaging Committee Report > > * FESCo didn't have any objections to the Packaging Committee's > > guidelines regarding: > [...] > > 4. Making the suggested buildroot mandatory > [...] > > What's the rationale behind this? I fail to see the purpose, since this > is something that needs to be addressed better than it is currently, > and ideally from inside rpm itself (and apparently it's being done, > thanks Bill). It's even being subject to current discussions, like > using mktemp for it... > > As far as I'm concerned, any directory inside %_tmppath with a name > which is package _and_ version specific is fine. And before adding "user > specific too", I'd definitely add "arch specific" as I find it more > important, so this is a never ending and useless debate... > > I'm asking because the usual "you should use this buildroot" I usually > get from people reviewing my packages has become "you must", which does > annoy me because I fail to see the point for such a change : > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/228294 We rediscussed this on the FPC meeting on the 13th, especially because the circumstances under which the voting happened where questionable to say the least (the opposition to this, e.g. me, was absent and the party in favour heavily misquoted the arguments of you and me drifting the voters to his cause ...) [1]. During the discussion on IRC we came up with a new buildroot to make more people happy BuildRoot: %(mktemp -d %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) This was positively voted upon. Later Ville found an issue with rpm -q/-bs leaving dead buildroots around and suggested BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) This still isn't perfect, but if one does want to fullfil goals like multiarch, multiuser, security etc it's the better choice. Personally I still prefer a simply EVR buildroot like you do, and I wished the "mandatory" of any buildroot suggestion would be dropped. [1] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00089.html [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00138.html -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp2YlvqIlg1C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
