On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:57:48AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:20 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > AT> Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines > > AT> and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion* > > > > -1 > > -1 > This puts us back where we started. It was a suggestion until recently. > The fact that it wasn't mandatory just confused reviewers and made > people debate the issue over and over inside of bugzilla. which is the same now when a half-hearted buildroot is made mandatory. If you want to make something mandatory it has to be something worth doing so. The buildroot that only covers a seldom corner case of multiple users building the same package while ignoring the far more common use case of building i386 and x86_64 on x86_64 (for F7 we're making even more multilib developping noise) is just not worth putting in specfiles lest to cast it into an iron mandatory part. > Let's move forward: > 1) Make a clear rule on a buildroot value that fixes the technical > issues. We made that rule. BTW was it ratified? Still it will see opposition just like the id -un rule. And any other buildroot is suggested. So let us just stop suggesting a buildroot (or at least stop dictating one). "If it works, it's OK". And any other funny corner case can indeed bend buildroots at will, right? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpjjbQ9aN7Ok.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
