On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:41:45AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 08:29, Axel Thimm wrote:
> It makes more sense to include a conditional epoch or target/arch in
> the buildroot that the builder. In fact the best thing for a
> buildsystem is to override the buildroot adding a build-id to it
> anyway.
Or what we REALLY should do is have rpm(build) supplant a standard buildroot
when one isn't found in the spec file, so we can REMOVE Buildroot from the
spec file all together and no longer have these discussions. Instead of
nitpicking on how the buildroot should look, we just say 'remove buildroot
definitions'. That's KISS.
I would agree, if it weren't for undefined behaviour at best when
someone uses the buildroot-less specfile on a system not supplying a
default buildroot.
In the worst case you could end up with an empty buildroot and
%install/%clean operations on the buildroot could suddenly really
happen in the live filesystem.
So, even if we get some current/future rpm version to behave as we
wish it we would need to allow for many years to pass to really start
dropping BuildRoot tags.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net