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:
[[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 ''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.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
So we voted on a new *mandatory* buildroot. By now people saw that
the
previous *mandatory* buildroot entered the guidelines and started
blocking new packages requiring the old *mandatory* buildroot.
I don't know what fesco did last week on ratifying or not the new
buildroot, and either way people will think differently on any single
buildroot. Perhaps buildroots are the most unimportant piece of s**t
with the most polarized parties.
Now who's idea was it to have a *MANDATORY* buildroot at all?</rhetoric>
Most of the FPC are fed up and have often stated that the buildroot
guidelines should be simple "If it works, have it".
Plain and simple:
Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines
and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion*
+1
The first other five positive voters get a free beer when I meet
them (we never said that committee members could not be bribed, or do
we need a guideline for that? ;)
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net