On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:01:32PM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> This is going to be a really big problem as if we do remove
> BuildRoot from spec files some day, people rebuilding those packages
> on ancient systems as root might get bitten pretty hard (the "rm -rf
> %{buildroot}" parts).
Now I understand why the [ "%{buildroot}" != / ] safeguard was in all
specfiles I removed it ;)
> One possible solution would be to also "externalise" a default %clean
> and the cleaning of the %{buildroot} as the first step of %install.
> This seems like it would actually make sense since those are also
> "silly copy/paste" items present in every spec file nowadays, and some
> --noclean option could probably easily be implemented in rpmbuild.
> Thoughts?
Maybe start a wishlist about what we want rpm-5.x to do and present it
to rpm developers?
Anyway, we need both a (very) long term plan which the rpm maintainer
must agree to which eliminates having to use BuildRoot and rm -fr
%{buildroot} in various places, and also a short term one which we can
recitify with default macros and good guidelines.
For example we could start by setting %{_topdir} and %{_tmppath}
defaults in redhat-rpm-confg for non-root users into their homes.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPXGtz8H59Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
