Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460732 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-02 23:36:15 EDT --- Short-circuiting is simply calling rpmbuild with --short-circuit. It lets you skip, say, directly to %build or %install without running %prep or %prep/%build, respectively, letting you tweak the package and test without having to sit through those potentially long steps. I think the point of the rpmlint warning is to remind you not to write to the buildroot during %prep and %build. This package doesn't even read from it. A problem might arise if the buildroot isn't constant between rpmbuild calls, such as when mktemp is called as part of buildroot determination, but that's not the case here. I can't think of a case with a constant buildroot which is neither being read nor written to which would cause a problem with short curcuiting. BTW, the package stashes the destdir location in config.omake.omc, which is binary for some reason. I hope this kind of thing doesn't catch on. In any case, I don't think this is a significant issue, since I can't come up with any way that it hurts anything and outside of patching some binary file there seems to be no way around it. Would you classify the version "0.1a" as an update from "0.1", or something which will later be released as "0.1"? Because you've versioned things as the latter, but it seems to me that it should be the former. I'd suggest Version: 0.1a Release: 1 unless you somehow don't trust upstream to keep a reasonable ordering. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages for more information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review