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

Re: Packaging guidelines: buildroot

On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote:

Axel Thimm (Axel Thimm ATrpms net) said:
Makes sense, it will make an end to the fantasy of BuildRoot name
inventes (like adding the uid ...).

But what happens when a package has no BuildRoot and neither does a
macro for it exist? Would it potentially eat the user's home?

rpmbuild: Fatal, no build root defined

(I doubt it does this now...)

IIRC it currently just tries to use / as buildroot if not defined anywhere, which is utterly nonsensible.

It'd make perfect sense if it behaved like that: if no buildroot has been set in spec or macros, error out, and then specify a sane buildroot in the default macros. I requested this on rpm-list a few years ago but got shot down with "yes I agree but legacy <mumble jumble>"s.

So yes, pretty please, my +10 for this. The current situation of people doing the right thing and using non / buildroot having to put in extra cruft in their specs is just silly.

	- Panu -

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