On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 16:14 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote :
>
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:36:25PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > Your and Thias' %buildroot regresses in comparison to the
> > > "recommendation". It diverges from the "recommendation" and
> > > introduces further non-deterministical behavior.
> > >
> > > That's reason why I refuse to approve your packages.
> > > Furthermore currently building the same package for two archs (like
> > > kernel@i686 and kernel@i586) will hurt even more, which is not a
> > > corner case, so if we were to play it mega-safe we would had to add
> > > arch/epoch also to it.
> >
> > Another example of a how views can vary:
> > To me *this* is a very extreme case, because apart of very few package
> > almost nothing in FE is being build for several targets.
>
> If you're bringing the FE packaging back into the debate... err... it's
> weird since if we consider only FE, this is clearly a non issue.
You intentional don't seem to be wanting to understand:
I am saying: The FE guideline recommendation supports rebuilding in a
typical user environment. Yours doesn't. As such it is a feature
regression and qualifies as a bug, which is sufficient reason for me not
to approve such packages.
> My final suggestions :
>
> 1) Bring up the default BuildRoot guideline issue at the next FESCO
> meeting.
I have put it on the packaging committee's agenda a couple of days ago.
> My suggestion for a possible change would be to have something
> like this in addition to the 'preferred' BuildRoot suggestion :
>
> "BuildRoot must be a sub-directory of "%{_tmppath}" and contain at
> least "%{name}" in its name."
Unacceptable to me.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
