On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:41:45AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 08:29, Axel Thimm wrote: > > It makes more sense to include a conditional epoch or target/arch in > > the buildroot that the builder. In fact the best thing for a > > buildsystem is to override the buildroot adding a build-id to it > > anyway. > > Or what we REALLY should do is have rpm(build) supplant a standard buildroot > when one isn't found in the spec file, so we can REMOVE Buildroot from the > spec file all together and no longer have these discussions. Instead of > nitpicking on how the buildroot should look, we just say 'remove buildroot > definitions'. That's KISS. I would agree, if it weren't for undefined behaviour at best when someone uses the buildroot-less specfile on a system not supplying a default buildroot. In the worst case you could end up with an empty buildroot and %install/%clean operations on the buildroot could suddenly really happen in the live filesystem. So, even if we get some current/future rpm version to behave as we wish it we would need to allow for many years to pass to really start dropping BuildRoot tags. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpKqbrKabWZS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
