Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 10:52, Joe Orton wrote:
> I completely agree with that. Unless the buildroot is picked by
> mkdtemp() you can't really *guarantee* avoidance of conflicts. If you
> want a guarantee then rpmbuild should be fixed to ignore BuildRoot and
> use mkdtemp() instead. Standardising an inadequate workaround and
> having packagers go through fixing N hundred spec files to match seems
> like a waste of time.
+1
We have the spec stubs that have an acceptable buildroot tag for new packages,
I don't see much value in harping on existing packages for the BuildRoot.
So, what is the current procedure. We have 150 Java packages that would
need to have the -%(%{__id_u} -n) appended.
Can the reviewers waive that bit until we have a final (and better)
solution to our buildroot?
Or perhaps we could make it a mass automated rebuild to replace all
BuildRoot: in all packages?