On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:41:44AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 14:53 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > e) True arguments are that > > obscuring the buildroot for the sake of an extremely rare > > corner case (several users building the same package on the > > same system w/o chroots) implies fixing it for far more not > > corner-cases like building i386 and x86_64 packages > > simulataneously. So the `id -nu` part is far less important > > than adding the target arch, but that was silently forgotten by > > racor > > > Is your suggestion to add arch to the buildroot? No, my suggestion is to loose up on requirements on buildroots. There is no known problem ever caused by choosing a "wrong" buildroot even by novices, and we're definitely over-engineering in fixing stuff that never broke. But if you want to be pedantic about corner cases, you would have to take arch far more serious than the user's id. The current suggested/preferred/mandatory buildroot is far from being worth being called that way. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgppDQ4YyaFt8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
