On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. I completely agree with that. Unless the buildroot is picked by mkdtemp() you can't really *guarantee* avoidance of conflicts. If you want a guarantee then rpmbuild should be fixed to ignore BuildRoot and use mkdtemp() instead. Standardising an inadequate workaround and having packagers go through fixing N hundred spec files to match seems like a waste of time. joe -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
