Re: Patches for shared configurations items and specifying additional dependencies
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