On 22 February 2018 at 10:47, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> 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.
> "It is important that your package list all necessary build
> dependencies using the BuildRequires: tag. You may assume that enough
> of an environment exists for RPM to function, to build packages and
> execute basic shell scripts, but you should not assume any other
> packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the
> buildroot by the build system may change over time." 
> This is not _too_ precise, but I think that's OK. It's pretty clear
> that a compiler is not necessary "for RPM to function, to build packages
> and execute basic shell scripts".
OK this is a problem on my part. I have taken sections which have
MUST/WILL/SHOULD in them to be done and I have taken ones without that
as general guidance. To me that section said it was ok to not list
gcc-cc if you knew it had to be there gcc-c++ would have to pull it
in. It is a should not a SHOULD and not a must or MUST. I will correct
my reading of this from now on.
> devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Stephen J Smoogen.
devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org