On 2003-09-04(Thu) 00:32:50 +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Ainsi parlait Michael Scherer : > > i suggest the last solution, but, maybe someone see a problem ? > Yes, coherency with other development tools. > How many packages really requires autoconf/automake ? I guess less than 1%. > However, autoconf/automake are rpm-build dependencies. Here we have more > packages requiring what appears some new build tool, and we are gonna add it > as an explicit require for each of them. This is plainly silly.
You can bump that number to 99% as well by adding patches to packages. People are talking about how widespread some tools are needed, and certainly autotools/libtool are the most prominent members, while some others are not. If missing some tools will make MANY packagers' life worse, then certainly it's worthy to add that to rpm-build dependency. I think pkgconfig is almost there, but not yet. Abel > > BTW, i was checking dependencies, rpm depends on make. Is this normal ? > -- > Guillaume Rousse > Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence > -- Murphy's Laws on Sex n°36 > > -- Abel Cheung Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
