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

Re: Build dependency exceptions (was: Re: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2)



On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:42:29 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 17:36 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
> > bugzilla redhat com [really paul cityfan org] wrote:
> > 
> > > I would suggest the following:
> > > 
> > > Instead of:
> > >  - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the
> > > exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> > > - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
> > > 
> > > I'd have:
> > >  - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
> > > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
> > > those as BuildRequires is optional.
> > 
> > I'd wholeheartedly agree with this (I've been looking at some packages
> > that I'm considering submitting and finding the removal of BR's just
> > because they happen to be in the current list of "standard" ones a bit
> > hard to swallow, especially when I might ideally like to use those in
> > other environments where the encoding of some BR's that are in the
> > Fedora "standard" list would be helpful)
> 
> My +1 to the "I'd have" wording above.  Others, spot?

If this means that we will see packages with BR gcc-c++ rpm-build
libstdc++-devel again, I cannot become fond of this proposal. ;)



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