Packaging Guidelines: Why so lax for BuildRoot?
Horst H. von Brand
vonbrand at inf.utfsm.cl
Sun Mar 23 01:52:12 UTC 2008
Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Stephen Warren
> <s-t-rhbugzilla at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> > I'm curious why the packaging guidelines aren't more specific re: the
> > requirements for the BuildRoot tag.
> >
> > To my mind, the BuildRoot is a purely internal "implementation detail"
> > of the build process, and no package should really depend on any
> > specific detail of the BuildRoot value/location.
Nodz.
> There's a huge list of things like this that are basically just
> copy&paste from the wiki. I think the right medium-term approach is
> to generate .spec files from a file like .spec.in as part of the build
> process. I've been working on and off on the Makefile.common and koji
> modifications necessary for this approach, and I hope to have an
> updated version to post within a week or two.
Please don't autogenerate .spec through autoconf or some such! The .spec
/controls/ running the configuration process, not the other way
around. It contains distribution specific configuration (local patches,
use self-knitted configuration, installation paths, ...), it is /not/
part of the upstream package.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513
More information about the devel
mailing list