Re: Packaging Guidelines: Why so lax for BuildRoot?

["Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand inf utfsm cl>]

Colin Walters <walters verbum org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Stephen Warren
> <s-t-rhbugzilla wwwdotorg org> wrote:
> > I'm curious why the packaging guidelines aren't more specific re: the
> >  requirements for the BuildRoot tag.
> >
> >  To my mind, the BuildRoot is a purely internal "implementation detail"
> >  of the build process, and no package should really depend on any
> >  specific detail of the BuildRoot value/location.

Nodz.

> There's a huge list of things like this that are basically just
> copy&paste from the wiki.  I think the right medium-term approach is
> to generate .spec files from a file like .spec.in as part of the build
> process.  I've been working on and off on the Makefile.common and koji
> modifications necessary for this approach, and I hope to have an
> updated version to post within a week or two.

Please don't autogenerate .spec through autoconf or some such! The .spec
/controls/ running the configuration process, not the other way
around. It contains distribution specific configuration (local patches,
use self-knitted configuration, installation paths, ...), it is /not/
part of the upstream package.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                    Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria             +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile               Fax:  +56 32 2797513