On 22 February 2018 at 02:41, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 10:51 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 21 February 2018 at 09:53, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > it's pretty easy:
> >
> > when you don't list your BuildRequires properly you depend on luck
> > that they
> > are pulled by something else in the buildroot
> >
>
> OK I understand that, but where is the cutoff. Where as a packager
> should I stop adding things and expect that libsolv is going to do
> its
> job? Do I need to put in
>
> BuildRequires: kernel
> BuildRequires: systemd
> BuildRequires: bash
> BuildRequires: glibc
> ...
>
> I am depending on luck to get all of those in the environment in a
> working variant. I can understand where defining all that would be
> useful. I just don't want to spend the next year doing this one by
> one
> like a death by a thousand papercuts. It would also be a better use
> of
> the time to have a tool which generated all N dozen items.
No, you don't need kernel/systemd/glibc for build. You do need bash,
but this is special case without which RPM wouldn't work. So you are
not expected to list those in any case.
I am trying to figure out the special cases here. Why are some
packages more equal than others.
In the end, I am just trying to figure out what the new "Fedora
Project Packagers License" is. Something like:
A packager MUST know every build requirement that their package uses
to build itself. A packager MUST list each of these as a
BuildRequires. A packager MUST not depend on dependencies to pull in
those packages.
That would have made this a lot clearer to me earlier on.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.