Re: Fedora Extras vs. CLOSED RAWHIDE

[Alan Cox <alan redhat com>]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:23:48PM +0200, Florian La Roche wrote:
> > which causes packagers to resort to  either resort to build-require
> > "bison m4" or "byacc" instead of "bison".
> 
> Your buildsystem should always require m4 until our source base is cleaned
> up to support this fine-grained level of requirements. Until now it is not.

I've applied a few buildreq fixes from Steve Grubb, hopefully I'll get his
next set soon and can carry on merging them.

> So if the problems don't warrant an update, I think the only solution is
> to add workarounds into the other packages. In the case of buildrequires
> I think it would be bad to create additional rpms instead of adding m4
> to the list of essential rpm packages.

Or reopen/file a new bug when it does become important.