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

Re: util-linux missing from build root



On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 22:21 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:01:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> 
> > Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:14:35 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >
> > >   
> > >>> Conclusively, if the expanded "FullExceptionList" cannot be relied
> > >>> on anymore, the minimal list is useless. Packages like sed, tar, gawk
> > >>> suddenly cannot be expected anymore to be available in the buildroot.
> > >>> This sucks.
> > >>>       
> > >> So help us come up with a better hard list of packages, so that the
> > >> explicit list is more useful and we don't have to worry about implicit
> > >> changes, instead of just whining about it on a mailing list.
> > >>     
> > >
> > > I'm not whining, but pointing out flaws which -- surprisingly -- meet
> > > resistance.
> > >
> > > With the full list deleted, coreutils, bash and many other fundamental
> > > packages are not guaranteed to be available in the default buildroot
> > > anymore. It is beyond my comprehension that somebody claims everything
> > > would be fine.
> > >   
> > There must be a miscommunication here.  Bash is on the list that will 
> > always be there:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions
> 
> Okay, that I get for not reloading the page due to temporary network
> probs. :)  But:
> 
> Then substitute the examples with glibc, libstdc++, binutils, cpp,
> file, grep, mktemp, util-linux, ... you get the idea.

The key to get this usable would be to use a _list of applications and
libraries_ and keep this _list constant_. Not a list of packages as it
is being done now.

Ralf





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