On (23/02/16 14:23), Rob Crittenden wrote:
>Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (23/02/16 17:09), Martin Basti wrote:
>>> We cannot guarantee that versions older than 1.4 will work with freeipa 
>>> code.
>>>
>>> Patch attached.
>> 
>>>From a59e72a0b87231c0f2e0d737057550dd532feed7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Martin Basti <mba...@redhat.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:58:07 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Set BuildRequires to pylint >= 1.4
>>>
>>> We can guarantee that only pylint 1.4 and newer will work
>>>
>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5615
>>> ---
>>> freeipa.spec.in | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/freeipa.spec.in b/freeipa.spec.in
>>> index 
>>> 54a11bfc8cced643c19c29c5ada70bacf7540395..219c5ca2f13eaac14746ec4689ba611bbc6fc377
>>>  100644
>>> --- a/freeipa.spec.in
>>> +++ b/freeipa.spec.in
>>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ BuildRequires:  python-netaddr
>>> BuildRequires:  python-gssapi >= 1.1.2
>>> BuildRequires:  python-rhsm
>>> BuildRequires:  pyOpenSSL
>>> -BuildRequires:  pylint >= 1.0
>>> +BuildRequires:  pylint >= 1.4
>> 
>> I can build rpms even withour pylint and pylint is not executed
>> anywhere in spec file. (in other words, my patch was rejected)
>> Why does it need to be in BuildRequires?
>
>pylint is part of the in-tree build process (make rpms). It is not
>executed when building upstream packages.
>
It's not buildrequires becuase I can rebuild src.rpm
without it. It should not be there or it should be optional
to do not break developer workflow.

e.g. "%bcond_with extra_dependencies_for_pylint"

The upstream spec files is close to the fedora spec file
and pylint is istalled there even though it's not used.

Another use case is coverity scan.

LS

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to