Levi Ramsey wrote: > On Wed Jul 30 18:42 +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: >> > To some extent, I'm not keen on the idea of automatic dependencies; >> > afaik, debian (to pick the most prominent distribution) seems to get by >> > fine on about 3 million platforms without an auto-deps system (the fact >> > that no package gets uploaded until it builds on all platforms may have >> > something to do with that...), and I think that making it easier for >> > packagers to offload the responsibility to create ideal dependencies to >> > something/someone else is a dangerous idea. But that's just my $0.02. >> >> b)be willing to fix all the missing -devel requires in all the packages? >> >> It's not feasible to get all of the devel requires correct manually, and >> how many of the problems we have now are due to the devel dependencies? > > It should be feasible at package creation time. At the very least, look > at the documentation for the code from upstream (which, in every case > I've looked at, said, "to compile this you'll need....") and use that as > the basis.
And the deps will only be correct at package creation time then. It's not maintainable. The way devel things are packages keeps getting shifted around. > If there's a problem, it will be caught, eventually. Hell, > some enterprising soul could (I think a couple have attempted this) do > the following: > > Start with a bare system: basesystem plus urpmi, rpm-build, and their > deps > For each src.rpm: > urpmi all BuildRequires > rpm --rebuild src.rpm > spam errors to maintainers ;o) > if successful: > make urpmi repository from RPMS/ directories > for each rpm in urpmi repository > urpmi rpm > spam errors > uninstall all packages installed in this step > uninstall BuildRequires > > Of course, -devel autodeps have not posed much of a problem of late... Right, and they actually help catch files being in the wrong packages within many specs. It's basically the perl deps that are problematic, but having those automatic is desirable...so long as it works right.
