On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 05:55:03PM -0600, Michael E Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 04:38:10PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Michael E Brown wrote: > > > > > >When we exec() rpmbuild, we do so with a clean environment. If you wish > > >to include dependencies, the proper way to do that is from the specfile. > > > > One could argue though that it should exec rpmbuild within a login shell > > so that it picks up settings from /etc/profile.d/* within the chroot > > environment. > > Indeed. One could argue that. > > At this point, I would defer to Jesse, who has more experience in this > specific area. > > I was merely trying to point out why the old mock behaviour was a bug > (leaking env vars from host=>chroot). > > The patch to change the rpmbuild to be a login shell would not be a > large one, and I am sort of on the fence about it. (Minor input would be > that env. vars from /etc/profile.d/ seem like a poor way to do this, > there seem to be lots of better ways.)
What's the benefit to having mock implicitly invoke a login shell, rather than the spec file explicitly including such if it needs it? I much prefer explicit over implicit - so much easier to track down when things don't work as expected when you don't have to "just know" that mock uses a login shell to invoke /etc/profile.d/* because you can see in the spec where /etc/profile.d/qt.sh got sourced. -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
