On Thursday 15 February 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:51:16 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 11:48 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > As soon as you set up a > > > local ~/.rpmmacros, you can define %_buildroot and point it to > > > a private location. Problem solved. > > > > Sure you can, but we had kept to the rpmdev-setuptree (used to be called > > fedora-something then) defaults, which doesn't define a buildroot, but > > only the very basics. > > It doesn't define a buildroot at all, and that is a problem in the script. Disagreed. In fact, I think it's the opposite. As long as there's no sane buildroot in the vanilla system rpmbuild setup, any tool, for example mock, that defines it is potentially brushing problems under the carpet. If the macros file emitted by that script or mock defines a buildroot and the vanilla system rpmbuild does not, it will make it easier for packages without any buildroot set to slip into the repositories. And on systems that don't have a default buildroot set, that will result in either failing builds as non-root users (even if otherwise properly set up for those users), or that plus a mess if someone is crazy/unlucky enough to try building such packages as root. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
