On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 23:01 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 25 juillet 2006 à 22:52 +0200, Axel Thimm a écrit :
>
> > But to come back to Ville's observation: It means that one shouldn't
> > mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the same specfile, which
> > hopefully noone is doing.
>
> This part is already in the guidelines but you're the first to find a
> reason why one is better/safer than the other.
>
> IMHO that's reason enough to make %{buildroot} mandatory in Fedora specs
> (will simplify the guidelines too). Hope the packaging dark cabinet is
> reading this.
I'm reading but having a hard time caring at this point :-)
Seriously, if we move the buildroot definition into rpm's config then it
would make sense to change to %{buildroot}. Under current guidelines
where the buildroot must be defined in every spec file, I don't think
the issue is very big.
BTW, is this property of undefined macros documented somewhere or is it
something that can change at the whim of the rpm maintainer?
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
