Packaging Guidelines: Why so lax for BuildRoot?

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 00:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's 100% nuts that the BuildRoot tag even exists.  This is something
> that could and should be handled by intelligence inside rpmbuild,
> with no need to try to herd developers into agreeing on whatever the
> theory-of-the-month is.
> 
> Expecting specfiles to rm -rf the buildroot is just as stupid.
> 
> I don't grasp why anyone is thinking that hundreds (thousands?) of
> Fedora developers should deal with these things, rather than fixing it
> once in RPM itself.

+1

Exchanging ugly for a slightly different sort of ugly brokenness is a
futile waste of time. Either fix it right, or don't bother.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080404/02cf986f/attachment-0002.bin