Re: util-linux missing from build root

[Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> Then substitute the examples with glibc, libstdc++, binutils, cpp,
> file, grep, mktemp, util-linux, ... you get the idea.
>  
> > As far as the 'full list deletee' it never should have been created in 
> > the first place as it created an incorrect expectation of what would be 
> > there.
> 
> Without the full list, how do you check the dep-chain for whether a BR
> is installed implicitly? e.g. whether binutils or cpp are available?
> They are pulled in by gcc, but when they are not listed anywhere, how
> do you check whether they must be put into explicit BR? Without the
> expanded [full] list one would need to add lots of BR to almost every
> package, which is something the minimal list tries to avoid.

In my opinion adding:
cpp binutils file findutils gawk glibc-devel grep libstdc++-devel mktemp
util-linux which

to the minimal list would be enough to have everything needed. The libs
associated with the devel packages would be implicit.

--
Pat