On 22 February 2018 at 02:41, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 10:51 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 21 February 2018 at 09:53, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > it's pretty easy: >> > >> > when you don't list your BuildRequires properly you depend on luck >> > that they >> > are pulled by something else in the buildroot >> > >> >> OK I understand that, but where is the cutoff. Where as a packager >> should I stop adding things and expect that libsolv is going to do >> its >> job? Do I need to put in >> >> BuildRequires: kernel >> BuildRequires: systemd >> BuildRequires: bash >> BuildRequires: glibc >> ... >> >> I am depending on luck to get all of those in the environment in a >> working variant. I can understand where defining all that would be >> useful. I just don't want to spend the next year doing this one by >> one >> like a death by a thousand papercuts. It would also be a better use >> of >> the time to have a tool which generated all N dozen items. > > No, you don't need kernel/systemd/glibc for build. You do need bash, > but this is special case without which RPM wouldn't work. So you are > not expected to list those in any case.
I am trying to figure out the special cases here. Why are some packages more equal than others. In the end, I am just trying to figure out what the new "Fedora Project Packagers License" is. Something like: A packager MUST know every build requirement that their package uses to build itself. A packager MUST list each of these as a BuildRequires. A packager MUST not depend on dependencies to pull in those packages. That would have made this a lot clearer to me earlier on. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- email@example.com To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org