2009/3/3 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
> 2009/3/3 Anders F Björklund <a...@rpm5.org>
>
>> Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>>
>> I did the other day a fresh mandriva cooker install and noticed with rpm
>>> 4.6.0 a welcomed
>>> change, the automatic creation and use of a local ~/rpmbuild for user
>>> rather than /usr/src/rpm.
>>>
>>> Since this makes it easier to just get a working rpm build environment
>>> for user and also
>>> removes the implicit encouragement of packaging using /usr/src/rpm as
>>> root, would anyone
>>> have anything against introducing same behaviour as rpm.org in rpm5.orgHEAD?
>>>
>>
>> You can set that with the --with-path-sources configure option, if
>> scared of ~/.rpmmacros. I believe rpm.org uses "%{getenv:HOME}/rpmbuild"
>
> Yes, but what I also would like is the automatic creation of these
> directories as well.
>
>
> Everything except the automatic/lazy creation of %{_topdir} has existed in
> RPM for years IIRC. I certainly use some variant of the lazy creation daily
> while building packages in
> /X/%{NAME}
>
>
>
>>
>> There's also the --with-path-buildroot option, if you also want to
>> change "%{_tmppath}" for "%{_topdir}/BUILDROOT" like rpm.org does now.
>>
>>
>> Not sure that the default configuration matters all that much, as
>> just with the rpm.spec it's bound to be changed by vendors anyway ?
>
> Yes, to some degree, but if you provide a default for local users, the
> default
> will more likely be adopted and I can't see any reason why anyone would
> feel
> very strongly about changing such a default.
> Having this as a default which user can expect to find ~regardless of
> vendor seems like a
> convenient way to make life easier for users and for anyone helping out
> users..
>
>
> There's serious flaws in the logic above. Sure, lusers are sheep likely
> to do whatever is suggested as "default". But that doesn't mean one
> should just go around herding the sheep into other pastures for no
> useful purpose.
>
> If you like the @rpm.org model, by all means, use it. But recommending
> that as "default" to everone is just pointless imho.
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
> 2009/3/3 Anders F Björklund <a...@rpm5.org>
>
>> Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>>
>> I did the other day a fresh mandriva cooker install and noticed with rpm
>>> 4.6.0 a welcomed
>>> change, the automatic creation and use of a local ~/rpmbuild for user
>>> rather than /usr/src/rpm.
>>>
>>> Since this makes it easier to just get a working rpm build environment
>>> for user and also
>>> removes the implicit encouragement of packaging using /usr/src/rpm as
>>> root, would anyone
>>> have anything against introducing same behaviour as rpm.org in rpm5.orgHEAD?
>>>
>>
>> You can set that with the --with-path-sources configure option, if
>> scared of ~/.rpmmacros. I believe rpm.org uses "%{getenv:HOME}/rpmbuild"
>
> Yes, but what I also would like is the automatic creation of these
> directories as well.
>
>
> Everything except the automatic/lazy creation of %{_topdir} has existed in
> RPM for years IIRC. I certainly use some variant of the lazy creation daily
> while building packages in
> /X/%{NAME}
>
>
>
>>
>> There's also the --with-path-buildroot option, if you also want to
>> change "%{_tmppath}" for "%{_topdir}/BUILDROOT" like rpm.org does now.
>>
>>
>> Not sure that the default configuration matters all that much, as
>> just with the rpm.spec it's bound to be changed by vendors anyway ?
>
> Yes, to some degree, but if you provide a default for local users, the
> default
> will more likely be adopted and I can't see any reason why anyone would
> feel
> very strongly about changing such a default.
> Having this as a default which user can expect to find ~regardless of
> vendor seems like a
> convenient way to make life easier for users and for anyone helping out
> users..
>
>
> There's serious flaws in the logic above. Sure, lusers are sheep likely
> to do whatever is suggested as "default". But that doesn't mean one
> should just go around herding the sheep into other pastures for no
> useful purpose.
>
> If you like the @rpm.org model, by all means, use it. But recommending
> that as "default" to everone is just pointless imho.
>
Well, it's anyways a better default than what is currently, which makes it
favorable IMO.
--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
