On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:21:38PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > spot asked me to draft something in the wiki about pushing all > responsibility to (grown-up) packagers while still presenting a couple > of sane buildroots as a guideline. > > The outcome is on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/BuildRoot: Matthias Saou made some changes cleaning up my e-glish and clarifying the one and other bit. In case you had made up your mind already and don't want to feel like voting for something changing underneath your feet I placed the changed content bits underneath the original proposal, see also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/BuildRoot?action=diff&rev2=4&rev1=3 > > [[Anchor(BuildRoot)]] > > == Build root tag == > > > > The ''Build``Root'' MUST be below %{_tmppath} and MUST use > > %{name}, %{version} and %{release}. It also may make use of > > ''mktemp'' since this is guaranteed to exist on any system. Other > > than that packagers are free to use any sane ''Build``Root''. => The ''!BuildRoot'' value MUST be below `%{_tmppath}/` and MUST contain at least `%{name}`, `%{version}` and `%{release}`. It may invoke `mktemp` since this is guaranteed to exist on every system. From there, packagers are expected to use a sane ''!BuildRoot''. > > The ''recommended'' values for the ''Build``Root'' tag are (in descending order of preference) > > {{{ > > %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root > > }}} > > At one point, this was a mandatory value, but it is now left to the packager. => At one point, the second was a mandatory value, but it is now left to the packager to decide. If unsure, simply pick the first. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpjBDbAfYV6o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
