Packaging Guidelines: Why so lax for BuildRoot?
Callum Lerwick
seg at haxxed.com
Fri Apr 4 07:40:42 UTC 2008
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 00:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's 100% nuts that the BuildRoot tag even exists. This is something
> that could and should be handled by intelligence inside rpmbuild,
> with no need to try to herd developers into agreeing on whatever the
> theory-of-the-month is.
>
> Expecting specfiles to rm -rf the buildroot is just as stupid.
>
> I don't grasp why anyone is thinking that hundreds (thousands?) of
> Fedora developers should deal with these things, rather than fixing it
> once in RPM itself.
+1
Exchanging ugly for a slightly different sort of ugly brokenness is a
futile waste of time. Either fix it right, or don't bother.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080404/02cf986f/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list