[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Implicit/minimum buildrequires

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:50, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:41:21AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires
> > 
> > The old Fedora Linux project had this tool and document for detecting
> > missing BuildRequires.  We considered only a very short list as
> > exceptions to BuildRequires, but all else should be added IMHO.
> I'd say the exceptions list needs to be larger, stuff like
> coreutils, glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders, bzip2
> certainly need to be in (ideally as real dependencies of rpm-build
> package).

Hmm, I'd rather like C-specific stuff (glibc-devel, glibc-headers,
glibc-kernheaders) being dependencies on a "C Development" meta package
containing only the dependencies on those packages along with gcc, etc.
rpm-build shouldn't depend on more than it really needs to run
(coreutils, bzip2, gzip, anything else?).

     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp redhat com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]