On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:54:22AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:35:53AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> >b) put a sensible default in the guidelines
>>
>> IMO, the guidelines already include a sensible default.
>
> In short id -un doesn't make sense, even epoch or target/arch
> would make more far more sense in a guideline's BuildRoot.
>
> Note that the guidelines are also there to educate people how to write
> clean and non-obfuscated specfiles. I'm quite sure the BuildRoot is
> cut & pasted in 99.99% of the packages making it a defacto proper
> thing to do. If it's bogus we need to fix it and not endorse it
> furthermore.
It's simply my opinion that it's not worth fixing something that isn't
broken.
It's not broken as in "fix all packages that use id -un", it just
shouldn't be promoted anymore as a default since it makes no
sense. And given that it does create workload on packager and reviewer
everytime this will come up again, let's fix it.
> Two independent reviewer considered this a blocker for a
> review's acceptance (even though it's marked "preferred").
The reviewers need to be whacked with a clue-stick. A working (non-broken)
buildroot is *not* a blocker.
That's what I meant with "wrong education". I can't blame reviewers
for following the guidelines to the letter (and since they are
scarce, I also don't want to use any punishment on them ;).
I thought this would be an EasyFix. :/
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net