Patches for shared configurations items and specifying additional dependencies

[seth vidal]

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 11:30 +0200, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006, seth vidal wrote:
> 
> >> [...] so we're probably just going to enable those build configs to 
> >> have a much "fatter" init.
> > why would we want to do that?
> 
> I do not know what Jesse is trying to build there, but I suspect he's
> talking about rebuilding RHEL SRPMs in mock.
> 
> If he doesn't want to fix the SRPMs for his rebuild, as the policy is to
> deliver exactly the same SRPMs as upstream he has to work around these
> broken SRPMs which won't build in mock until upstream has fixed it.
> 
> In this case, fattening up the buildroots definitions might help, but it 
> is rather global and IMHO definitely not elegant at all.
> 
> > If a package has insufficient buildreqs then the package is broken.
> 
> Agreed. For FE use, fattening up the buildroots or even using my moredeps 
> patch is a very bad idea (tm) as it would allow broken packages to slip 
> through.
> 
> But it seems to me that plague and even more so mock is increasingly being 
> used by other people and projects for building their rpms.
> 
> And if they cannot fix their packages (e.g. wanting to keep their 
> SRPMs packages in synx with upstream) they can at least build the packages 
> until upstream has fixed them.
>  
> > We should not write code to work around broken packages that can be
> > fixed.
> For FE, no, we should not. For other purposes, I'd welcome a solution to 
> at least allow me to work around problems.

okay, I can accept that.

But the first time I hear someone who wants us to do special things to
mock to allow us to build fedora packages I'm going to smack them
around. :)

-sv