[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [GuidelinesChange] Prepping BuildRoot For %install



On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Tony Nelson wrote:

At 9:30 AM +0300 4/11/07, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:

On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 23:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa redhat com> writes:
It is important to properly prepare the BuildRoot in the %install
section of your package before it is used. Every Fedora package MUST
have an %install section that begins with either:
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
or
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Just outta curiosity, why is it not considered an RPM bug that every
specfile has to take care of this detail?  Seems like it'd be trivial
to fix it once instead of memorializing this oversight in every package
till the end of time.

This is absolutely an RPM bug. However, since RPM is riddled with bugs,
we can either hope they get fixed, or work around them with guidelines
until they get fixed.

Historically, filing bugs against items like this have been futile since
it would "change RPM's behavior", as broken as it may be.

I've always been more than a bit puzzled by this... if the same logic was
applied everywhere we'd be stuck with egcs 1.x (or something) as the C
compiler because newer versions change the behavior and "break" a large
amount of existing software.

When the C compiler is changed, already compiled programs keep running.
When RPM is changed, already built RPMs stop working.  /Thats/ what freezes
RPM's behavior.

Except this discussion (and several similar others) has been about rpm *build-time* functionality. Oh and good luck trying to actually run binaries built in lets say rpm-4.0.x era on current systems :)

	- Panu -


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]