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

Re: util-linux missing from build root



Hi,

On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:10:48PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:01:28PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > Sounds fine to me, I like gawk :)  Anyone care to own this and take it to 
> > > > the FESCo?

I'm willing to take this to FESCo.  Is there a way to get to a FESCo
meeting, so that I can advocate this there?

I'm writing an essay on the topic, trying to prove every item very
thoroughly.  All I know is that FESCo can be contacted by sending a
mail to fedora-maintainers redhat com   When I have my case complete,
I'll drop a mail there and wait for a reply.

> > > cpp binutils file findutils gawk glibc-devel grep libstdc++-devel mktemp
> > > util-linux which

> we also need the "info" package (install-info binary).

Yes, my current list for the essay contains it.  Actually, I
currently have proofs only for:
  findutils gawk grep info

For example, I'm not proposing "binutils," because relying on the
fact that gcc will always require them is not that dangerous.

I also considered util-linux, when jnovy mentioned that a package
needs "kill" to build properly.  But I came to a conclusion that
"kill", "mount", nor any other command from util-linux doesn't have
to be in the minimal buildroot.

OTOH, I think that it would be sane to have a rule that all packages
not explicitely listed on the Exception List have to be buildrequired
if they are necessary for the build.
If that rule were accepted, it would be of course necessary to add
"binutils" to Exception List.

Have a nice day,
	Stepan Kasal


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