On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 18:45, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 17:59, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Shrug, he's not alone in that. I was against *mandating* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
It's not mandatory. It just happens to be in the specfile templates as
well as recommended in the QA checklist because of its "official" status
according to jbj's comments.
"should be replaced with $RPM_BUILD_ROOT", combined with QA complaining
about %{buildroot} usage makes it mandatory in practise. If it's not
supposed to be mandatory then the QA checklist should say "check for
consistent use of %{buildroot} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" instead of what's
there now.
It's not like things like this are the biggest deal in existence, it's
just IMHO an arbitrary rule which to me are somewhat irritanting.
- Panu -