Implicit/minimum buildrequires

[Paul Nasrat]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:05:25PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2003, Elliot Lee <sopwith at redhat.com> wrote:

> > Jakub's point may be that there needs to be some way of enforcing the
> > dependencies that constitute a 'minimum build environment' that other

> Well...  If glibc-devel is to be present, then I guess so should gcc
> and binutils.  Otherwise I fail to see the point.

I believe Jakub was referring to adding to the exceptions from the
fedora wiki which could go on to form a "core"[1] or minimum build
environment (as they do with fedora-rpmdevtools.  

http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires

rpm-build
gcc
gcc-c++
redhat-rpm-config
diffutils
make
patch
tar

> Maybe we need a BuildNoPrereq: for the rare exceptions? 

Hmm, the only times I can see this being usefull is if you only build
packages that are not compiled (pure perl/python/shell) or for trying to
selfbootstrap certain packages.

The idea, as I follow it is to have rpm-build or some meta build package
cf fedora-rpmdevtools Require the minimal environment.  That would at
least provide a good starting point for a policy or an automated
buildreq generation/supplemental tool.  There would be theoretically
nothing stopping you from installing @Core @Base and rpm-build with eg
python-devel, and your packages would probably have no additional
BuildRequires for shell scripts only.

Paul
[1] Lets all overload the word core as much as possible :)