Re: util-linux missing from build root
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.