> Do I understand correctly that the `BUILDROOT` dir was replaced by
> `%{_builddir}/%{_target_cpu}-%{_target_os}-root`? The `%{_builddir}` is the
> right move IMHO, but what is the advantage of
> `%{_target_cpu}-%{_target_os}-root` over `BUILDROOT`, especially when e.g.
> `SPECPARTS` stays the same.
These details are nowhere near fully thought through, and are certainly
debatable and open/subject to change. In my initial patch buildroot was always
BUILDROOT, but then experimenting with the vpath build stuff and your own
mention about potentially needing multiple build directories made me think
perhaps it should match the build directory name, and those are commonly named
by the target tuple.
All that is of course irrelevant within a single rpmbuild run, but down that
road far in the horizon one could imagine unpacking the source once, and then
executing just the build steps from other hosts using a read-only shared mount
of the source. Or (cross-) building on the same host for multiple targets at
once. Of course in such a scenario, SPECPARTS would have to be similarly
per-arch-os too, it's a valid point.
Wild visions aside, think of the (buildroot) rename more like shaking a tree a
bit to see what falls out rather than something decided.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2885#issuecomment-1928974339
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2885/c1928974...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
