On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 09:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:04:52 -0400
seth vidal <skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> This doesn't sound terrible to me. If we did provide a list of library
> requirements and application requirements that we define as minimal it
> would be easy to pass that list to yum to resolve and install.
>
> something to think about, anyway.
Can it be expressed as a comps group though? Does yum comps module
handle that?
It can't atm, no. That could change, potentially.
Also keep in mind that part of having the minimal buildroot was so
that
when people rebuild packages on their own, they didn't have to hunt
down why their package didn't build right due to silent missing
BuildRequires. That means we start with very little assumptions and
use the BuildRequires to build up exactly what we want around when this
package is built.
I understand - I was just thinking that a base definition of libraries +
applications that we need for a minimal chroot has the virtue of
surviving independent of package renaming.
-sv