Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 10:52, Joe Orton wrote:
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.
+1
We have the spec stubs that have an acceptable buildroot tag for new packages,
I don't see much value in harping on existing packages for the BuildRoot.
So, what is the current procedure. We have 150 Java packages that would
need to have the -%(%{__id_u} -n) appended.
Can the reviewers waive that bit until we have a final (and better)
solution to our buildroot?
Or perhaps we could make it a mass automated rebuild to replace all
BuildRoot: in all packages?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
