On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:25:36AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 09:33 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 06:06:11AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > E.g. there exist packages, which want/need to be built
"multi-staged",
> > with %build containing (often: temporary) installs to %{buildroot}.
> > In some (very rare) occasions, packages even require "building"
inside
> > of %buildroot.
>
> These are exactly the broken packages that I want to cater with the
> proposed changes!
There ain't anything broken with these packages ;)
You're entitled to think so, yes. But they are broken nonetheless. :)
They do not leave files around, nor do they do anything harmful.
They
simply do not fit into the constraints you are trying to set up.
Same is true for a package doing everything in %prep. Does that
justify it just the same? And these are not constraints *I* am trying
to set up, this is how rpm was designed to be used, the constraints
are just to make sure it is used that way.
> If you want to do staged installs during build time you *HAVE*
to do
> so in builddir, not buildroot.
Why? rpmbuild and the spec have full access to both directories and can
read/write to both.
rpmbuild has access to a lot of other directories, the guidelines are
there to restrict this access to the sane set of directories.
> Nope, both ways are a sloppy way of packaging. It should be
> forbidden. Stage your builds in %build/%{builddir}, don't build in
> %install and don't touch %{buildroot} in %prep/%build. This should be
> carved in stone.
<sigh/> IMO, you are trying to overengineer something.
Well, in your opinion. That's the nice thing about a democratic
institution, everybody may have an opinion and need not agree with the
other. Still if enough opinions are gathered we'll have a functional
guideline.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net