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

Re: util-linux missing from build root

Michael Schwendt wrote:
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

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.

AFAIK this hasn't changed at all:


I'm sorry that what you assumed would be there isn't, but what we say will be there (as listed in the Packaging Guidelines) is as it always was. The implicit list has been removed but the explicit list hasn't changed and without FESCo approval, won't.


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