Re: util-linux missing from build root

[Ville Skyttä <ville skytta iki fi>]

On Thursday 30 August 2007, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 06:39:00PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 August 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > If a Makefile uses it to install info files, it must be a BR. Else it
> > > might happen that a missing install-info results in missing info
> > > files.
> >
> > The same thing can be said of just about every feature that is optional
> > in upstream Makefile/configure etc.
>
> No, it is different. In fedora info manuals are always welcome,
> and texinfo is widespread.

Ok, how is it different from something else that is optional per upstream 
build setup, but considered always welcome in Fedora and widespread?  X and 
GNOME and Qt and KDE etc support is practically always welcome, so would you 
like all libX*-devel, *gnome*-devel, qt*-devel and kde*-devel added to 
the "minimal" build roots because some packages might not get those features 
built in if the packager doesn't add the BR's?

(BTW, somewhat offtopic: I'm not saying they shouldn't always be packaged, but 
info manuals are not really welcome in my setups, let alone texinfo.  I hate 
the "info" browser enough so I practically never use them, so all they do to 
me is consume a bit of disk space and bandwidth on updates and cause package 
scriptlet breakage every now and then.)