Prelink success story :)

[Dag Wieers]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:34:59 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> 
> > > No, I don't understand why you feel the need to discuss minor things like
> > > this and make a mountain out of a molehill. If not RPM_BUILD_ROOT, I'm
> > > sure you would find something else. I mean, even if someone modified the
> > > checklist today, you would not contribute any packages to fedora.us,
> > > because you're entirely happy with your own repository and full control
> > > over your own releases. Am I wrong?
> > 
> > Michael, please calm down. This discussion started because someone 
> > corrected a Red Hat engineer when he used %{buildroot}.
> 
> Yes, and the Red Hat engineer would not change that anyway unless there
> were good reason. 
> 
> The fedora.us documents don't say anywhere that $RPM_BUILD_ROOT would be
> "better than" or "more correct than" %buildroot.  They just say that
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is preferred at fedora.us and give the reason why that is
> the case.

http://www.fedora.us/wiki/QAChecklist

    "Does the package have any %{buildroot} macros? If so, they should be 
    replaced with $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Ditto for %{optflags} -> 
    $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. For more info, see 
    http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-April/001155.html."

The same for fedora.us legacy QAChecklist.


> > I was just stating that if it wasn't mandatory (what I learned from you 
> > after an ironic remark) than the fedora.us policy should change.
> >
> > And then suddenly all hell break loose.
> 
> With your early replies you started a not so friendly sounding
> policy debate, e.g. in
> 
>   Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402261717460.2334 at horsea.3ti.be>
> 
> and you didn't stop at $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs. %buildroot.

Correct, because there were other such cases, of which some (after proper 
discussion) also were not mandatory anymore. So yes, it was valuable for 
me to ask and no, it didn't need the kind of response I got.

That it didn't sound friendly was not intentional, I though my initial 
remark was actually funny and quite to the point. Little did I know the 
policy had changed and the documentation did lack behind.

I guess more people want that document corrected, still I can't undo 
myself of the feeling you're against it because I brought it up. Well, I 
certainly will think twice now. You know where to find me !

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]