Ralf Corsepius wrote :
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 10:03 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 16:15 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:54:22AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
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.
The point you seem to be missing, your buildroot is broken: buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
And you missed the point that *in the context of Fedora Extras*, it's not broken.
Rebuilding rpms by users is not amongst the Fedora tasks? FE is living in the ivory towers of mock?
With all due respect, ....
Oops. I missed this thread and started a very similar one, since reviewers are complaining about the same BuildRoot problem in my packages than in Axel's.
- I'd like non-broken BuildRoots to be considered OK (this should already be the case with "preferred" in the guidelines), and by non-broken I mean something like "starts with %{_tmppath}/ and contains at least a directory name unique to the package being built". Maybe the guidelines could be updated to include something like that.
- I'd like the FUD about appending `id -u` solving the problem for multi-user builds on the same system stop. Ralf, please : Users of a same system will also have conflicts with %_builddir, %_rpmdir and %_srcrpmdir by default and are *REQUIRED* to at least change their %_topdir to get things working. Well, just have them also change their %_tmppath as it can only be a positive thing.
Matthias