On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:58:25 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
Seeing the suggestion that packagers should BR util-linux-ng triggered
my reaction. I feel that if more BR like that are needed "now", we
will see more path-based BR, too, and BR for fundamental tools like
cpp, gcc, gcc-c++, rpm-build, /bin/sh, ...
Did you miss the last part of my mail where I gave an opportunity and a
place to bring suggestions to growing the base set of packages we
target?
No, I saw it, but the bureaucracy (and suggested discussion) is beyond
my time. This is the 2nd time in one week that a tool is missing in
the buildroots, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by FESCo. The original
definition of the minimal buildroot is void.