On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 09:10:16AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 08:51, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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. > > Have you tried (within a chroot) to build a package w/out a chroot on our > modern rpm? (I haven't yet, other things to do today...) You mean w/out a buildroot? I did try on FC5, and there BuildRoot: foo is effectively the same as %define buildroot foo No errors/warnings if BuildRoot is missing (and of course no sensible default, in fact no definition of the buildroot macro at all), which is a bit disappointing if you ask me. But that's only half the story. Even if we would find FC5's rpm to do something sensible w/o a BuildRoot tag, we cannot rely only on modern rpm's behaviour and try to check whether a missing BuildRoot tag would create havoc there or not. You would need to check this behaviour with past rpm versions, both packaged in Red Hat/Fedora products/releases and even upstream. We don't want to be responsible for any breakage, not even outside Fedora/RHEL. I don't think it's worth while risking it. Better/easier to a) override it in buildsystems aynway, and b) put a sensible default in the guidelines -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpgKFGWQnzmZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
