>>>>> "edward" == Edward Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi
>> This is a nono, if you need glibc-devel, ask for it. Notice than
>> asking for make don't make too many sense, as rpm should depend on
>> it.
edward> Why should rpm depend on make? I'm not aware that rpm ever calls make
edward> for anything - unless the spec file asks for it, but of course the spec
edward> file could ask for anything at all.
sorry, not rpm, rpm-devel.
[greping sources]
I was wrong, /usr/lib/rpm/*/macros belong to rpm instead of rpm-devel
quintela$ rpm -qf /usr/lib/rpm/i586-mandrake-linux/macros
rpm-4.0.3-0.13mdk
quintela$ grep make /usr/lib/rpm/i586-mandrake-linux/macros
# XXX I'll make these the default linux values soon as I can.
# make
%_make_bin make
%make if [ -z "$NPROCS" -a -f /proc/stat ]; then NPROCS=`egrep -c ^cpu[0-9]+
/proc/stat || :`; fi; if [ -z "$NPROCS" -o "$NPROCS" -le "0" ]; then NPROCS=1; fi;
%{_make_bin} -j$NPROCS
%make_session if [ -x %{_fndsession_bin} ]; then %{_fndsession_bin} ||
true ; fi
you can see that rpm has embodied calls to make, but you are right, it
don't depend on it (and shouldn't, I think that rpm-devel should, but
that is a different story).
edward> Shouldn't it be possible to install a small system without make? RPM is
edward> essential to Linux-Mandrake, if you make rpm depend on make, then you
edward> have made make essential too. But that doesn't reflect reality AFAIK.
I agree here, rpm should work without make, rpm-devel (or whatever
will be its name, not).
>> - Mandrake install gcc & make in a default install, but:
>> 1- that can change (a end user don't need make normally).
>> 2- you don't want to have installed gcc/make whateven in one
>> firewall and similar devices.
edward> So why make rpm depend on make? Or have I misunderstood you?
sorry for the confusion :(
>> Where do you draw the line, easy, if the package is in basesystem, you
>> don't need to ask for it, otherwise you need to ask for it explicitly.
edward> Okay, and there is a stated assumption that if you don't have the
edward> default base system installed, you can't expect to build packages?
I think that this is not an assumption, it is that if you remove _any_
package for basesystem, the system _could_ not work properly. It is
called basesystem for something :)
edward> Again, I would suggest a package called 'base-system' which depends on
edward> all the stuff included in the standard install. Then uninstalling gcc,
edward> for example, would warn that you were losing base system functionality
edward> (in an obscure kind of way) and you'd have to explicitly ask for this.
no, basesystem is _way_ less than standard install, it is the
_minimun_ ammount of packages to make the system work. You can think
of it as similar to minimal install allowed.
edward> Similarly trying to build an RPM would warn that you need base-system
edward> installed, and you couldn't install the base-system package without
edward> actually having the needed stuff.
Sure, see above, if you remove _anything_ of basesystem:
1- it is better that you know what are you doing
2- nothing is guaranteed to work after that
edward> However I think you would also dislike that idea. One could argue that
edward> if you go around removing basic packages like make, you probably know
edward> what you're doing and you can expect to take the consequences. Newbies
edward> or moderately experienced users wouldn't do that. I think this is a
edward> sensible position. But you still need to define what the base system
edward> is, and wouldn't it be best for the user to get some warning that he is
edward> about to uninstall base system functionality?
No, remove make is ok, and shouldn't be in the base-system. Having
rpm-build, or rpm-devel depending of make look right to me.
Later, Juan.
--
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they
are different -- Larry McVoy
