util-linux missing from build root
Michael Schwendt
mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam at arcor.de
Thu Aug 30 13:41:30 UTC 2007
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:08:40 +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:55:12PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:10:57 +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> >
> > > I also considered util-linux, when jnovy mentioned that a package
> > > needs "kill" to build properly. But I came to a conclusion that
> > > "kill", "mount", nor any other command from util-linux doesn't have
> > > to be in the minimal buildroot.
> >
> > arch, flock, getopt, rename are nice to have by default.
>
> well, might be nice, but I'm afraid we need to be more exact.
>
> Could you please find out or estimate, for each of the utils you
> mentioned:
> - how many upstream tarballs do not build without it?
> - if they do not build, is it a transparent error, or
> is it a hard-to-debug problem (builds but does not work in
> certain special cases, for eample)?
> - how many spec files call the utility?
>
> If the number of packages affected is small, and if the broken
> packages are easy to discover and fix, we can leave util-linux out.
Hyperbole. If such an enormous effort is needed to justify adding a
core package, it is certainly not worth it. It would require burning
cycles on thousands of tarballs, builds and checker-scripts to see
whether a tarball disables features or self-tests when a tool is
missing.
The "initscripts" package used to require "util-linux". For a package
that is available on the majority of Fedora/RHEL installations, I
don't see any reason to make it a special optional build requirement.
I'd rather add a generated set of buildroot packages to spec files
and save the time.
More information about the devel
mailing list