Proposed changes to buildsys-build group (otherwise known as the Exceptions list)

[Tomas Mraz]

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 20:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Recently there has been some fluctuation in the implicit list of
> packages expected to be in the minimal build roots.  Due to this we've
> had some discussions on what to adjust to ease the pain and re-set
> expectations going forward.
> 
> As such there is a proposal to add a few packages to the Explicit
> list.  Some were already being pulled in implicitly but we want to make
> them explicit.  Some had been missing lately and we'd like them back.
> 
> The current list is:
> 
>    bzip2
>    unzip
>    fedora-release
>    redhat-rpm-config
>    perl
>    diffutils
>    make
>    cpio
>    gcc
>    coreutils
>    sed
>    which
>    rpm-build
>    gzip
>    patch
>    gcc-c++
>    tar
>    bash
> 
> (perl-devel has been short term added to help with some transitions
> with the perl -> perl-devel split, however it is now going to be
> removed)
> 
> The proposed new explicit list would look like:
> 
>    bzip2
>    unzip
>    fedora-release
>    redhat-rpm-config
>    diffutils
>    make
>    cpio
>    gcc
>    coreutils
>    sed
>    which
>    rpm-build
>    gzip
>    patch
>    gcc-c++
>    tar
>    bash
>    util-linux-ng
>    gawk
>    info
>    grep
>    findutils
> 
> This would currently dep resolve out to 8 new packages, and 3M more
> content in the buildroot.
> 
> For reference a really minimal install (@core, kernel) with rpm-build
> added in, would need the following packages to have at least this
> minimal buildroot:
> 
> bzip2
> gcc-c++
> make
> redhat-rpm-config
> unzip
> which
> binutils
> cpp
> gcc
> glibc-devel
> glibc-headers
> kernel-headers
> libgomp
> libstdc++-devel
> 
> This would be accomplished by a simple 'yum groupinstall
> buildsys-build'.  It's still a few more things that have to be added
> than I'm comfortable with, I'd much prefer that a micro install +
> rpm-build gave you what was in the minimal buildroot so that you could
> have confidence in the BuildRequires, but I'm willing to bend a bit.
> 
> Along with these changes would be some clearer text regarding what can
> be assumed and what can't.  Only the Explicit list would be given in
> the wiki, and only things in the explicit list would be absolutely OK
> to assume.  Anything else should be regarded as "bonus" only and
> subject to potential change.  I have asked Seth Vidal to help create a
So we now have to buildrequire even the packages from the third list
above? Such as binutils, glibc-devel, glibc-headers and kernel-headers?
That seems really weird and I'd suggest to add them to the explicit
list.

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb