On 22 February 2018 at 02:41, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 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 -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to