On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 16:14 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote :
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:36:25PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Your and Thias' %buildroot regresses in comparison to the
> > "recommendation". It diverges from the "recommendation"
and
> > introduces further non-deterministical behavior.
> >
> > That's reason why I refuse to approve your packages.
> > Furthermore currently building the same package for two
archs (like
> > kernel@i686 and kernel@i586) will hurt even more, which is not a
> > corner case, so if we were to play it mega-safe we would had to add
> > arch/epoch also to it.
>
> Another example of a how views can vary:
> To me *this* is a very extreme case, because apart of very few package
> almost nothing in FE is being build for several targets.
If you're bringing the FE packaging back into the debate... err... it's
weird since if we consider only FE, this is clearly a non issue.
You intentional
don't seem to be wanting to understand:
I am saying: The FE guideline recommendation supports rebuilding in a
typical user environment. Yours doesn't. As such it is a feature
regression and qualifies as a bug, which is sufficient reason for me not
to approve such packages.
My final suggestions :
1) Bring up the default BuildRoot guideline issue at the next FESCO
meeting.
I have put it on the packaging committee's agenda a couple of days
ago.
My suggestion for a possible change would be to have something
like this in addition to the 'preferred' BuildRoot suggestion :
"BuildRoot must be a sub-directory of "%{_tmppath}" and contain at
least "%{name}" in its name."
Unacceptable to me.
Ralf