Packaging Guidelines: Why so lax for BuildRoot?
dimi at lattica.com
Mon Mar 24 16:08:30 UTC 2008
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 12:23 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Oh, interesting, then you're one of the very few who really ran into
> it. It was mostly a theoretical problem, because users had to define
> %buildroot themselves to get "rm -rf /" and also build as root.
Hey, this happened many years ago (maybe '97), so I don't recall exactly
what I did, but I didn't have to go through too many hoops :)
Regardless, my point is that it pays to think about interfaces and
encapsulation, and this one is such an obvious fsck-up that it should
have been painfully obvious from the very beginning.
It's still surprising that it managed to resist for so long.
What would happen if rpmbuild would define %buildroot by default,
and make it immutable? Then we could just sed through the .spec
files and nuke its definition from there...
Dimi Paun <dimi at lattica.com>
More information about the devel