So we voted on a new *mandatory* buildroot. By now people saw that the previous *mandatory* buildroot entered the guidelines and started blocking new packages requiring the old *mandatory* buildroot.
I don't know what fesco did last week on ratifying or not the new buildroot, and either way people will think differently on any single buildroot. Perhaps buildroots are the most unimportant piece of s**t with the most polarized parties.
Now who's idea was it to have a *MANDATORY* buildroot at all?</rhetoric>
Most of the FPC are fed up and have often stated that the buildroot guidelines should be simple "If it works, have it".
Plain and simple:
Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion*
+1
The first other five positive voters get a free beer when I meet them (we never said that committee members could not be bribed, or do we need a guideline for that? ;)
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:20 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"AT" == Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net writes:
AT> Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines AT> and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion*
-1
-1 This puts us back where we started. It was a suggestion until recently. The fact that it wasn't mandatory just confused reviewers and made people debate the issue over and over inside of bugzilla.
Let's move forward: 1) Make a clear rule on a buildroot value that fixes the technical issues. 2) Get changes made to rpm so that F7/8 and RHEL6 don't have to worry about this.
-Toshio
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:57:48AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:20 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> "AT" == Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net writes:
AT> Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines AT> and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion*
-1
-1 This puts us back where we started. It was a suggestion until recently. The fact that it wasn't mandatory just confused reviewers and made people debate the issue over and over inside of bugzilla.
which is the same now when a half-hearted buildroot is made mandatory. If you want to make something mandatory it has to be something worth doing so.
The buildroot that only covers a seldom corner case of multiple users building the same package while ignoring the far more common use case of building i386 and x86_64 on x86_64 (for F7 we're making even more multilib developping noise) is just not worth putting in specfiles lest to cast it into an iron mandatory part.
Let's move forward:
- Make a clear rule on a buildroot value that fixes the technical
issues.
We made that rule. BTW was it ratified? Still it will see opposition just like the id -un rule. And any other buildroot is suggested.
So let us just stop suggesting a buildroot (or at least stop dictating one). "If it works, it's OK". And any other funny corner case can indeed bend buildroots at will, right?
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:27:37PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
So let us just stop suggesting a buildroot (or at least stop dictating one). "If it works, it's OK".
Problem being there are even differing opinions on what "If it works" means.
Let it be a broad as possible or drop that part from the guidelines. "If it works" means it doesn't eat your cats, wife and mother in law. Although some may even discuss that some of these side-effects aren't really that bad ...
spot asked me to draft something in the wiki about pushing all responsibility to (grown-up) packagers while still presenting a couple of sane buildroots as a guideline.
The outcome is on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/BuildRoot:
[[Anchor(BuildRoot)]] == Build root tag ==
The ''Build``Root'' MUST be below %{_tmppath} and MUST use %{name}, %{version} and %{release}. It also may make use of ''mktemp'' since this is guaranteed to exist on any system. Other than that packagers are free to use any sane ''Build``Root''.
The ''recommended'' values for the ''Build``Root'' tag are (in descending order of preference) {{{ %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root }}}
At one point, this was a mandatory value, but it is now left to the packager.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
So we voted on a new *mandatory* buildroot. By now people saw that the previous *mandatory* buildroot entered the guidelines and started blocking new packages requiring the old *mandatory* buildroot.
I don't know what fesco did last week on ratifying or not the new buildroot, and either way people will think differently on any single buildroot. Perhaps buildroots are the most unimportant piece of s**t with the most polarized parties.
Now who's idea was it to have a *MANDATORY* buildroot at all?</rhetoric>
Most of the FPC are fed up and have often stated that the buildroot guidelines should be simple "If it works, have it".
Plain and simple:
Request for voting on dropping the *mandatory* from the guidelines and explicitely cast it into a *suggestion*
+1
The first other five positive voters get a free beer when I meet them (we never said that committee members could not be bribed, or do we need a guideline for that? ;)
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:21:38PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
spot asked me to draft something in the wiki about pushing all responsibility to (grown-up) packagers while still presenting a couple of sane buildroots as a guideline.
The outcome is on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/BuildRoot:
Matthias Saou made some changes cleaning up my e-glish and clarifying the one and other bit. In case you had made up your mind already and don't want to feel like voting for something changing underneath your feet I placed the changed content bits underneath the original proposal, see also
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/BuildRoot?action=diff&rev2...
[[Anchor(BuildRoot)]] == Build root tag ==
The ''Build``Root'' MUST be below %{_tmppath} and MUST use %{name}, %{version} and %{release}. It also may make use of ''mktemp'' since this is guaranteed to exist on any system. Other than that packagers are free to use any sane ''Build``Root''.
=> The ''!BuildRoot'' value MUST be below `%{_tmppath}/` and MUST contain at least `%{name}`, `%{version}` and `%{release}`. It may invoke `mktemp` since this is guaranteed to exist on every system. From there, packagers are expected to use a sane ''!BuildRoot''.
The ''recommended'' values for the ''Build``Root'' tag are (in descending order of preference) {{{ %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root }}}
At one point, this was a mandatory value, but it is now left to the packager.
=> At one point, the second was a mandatory value, but it is now left to the packager to decide. If unsure, simply pick the first.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Rex Dieter -
Toshio Kuratomi