On 12/13/2013 02:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50 +0100,
Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * It might be interesting to have some script, which tries to audit
> BR, e.g. it removes all BR first and then adds them back as they are
> required. This could reveal some BR which are actually not needed
> anymore, but are listed among BR from historic reasons.
The check for this needs to be careful. When some requirements are
missing a build can still succeed, but be missing intended features. So
you can't just test whether a build succeeds or fails to determine if a
build requirement is really needed.
Yep. I remember back when we did the s390x stuff for F12 that was one of
the things we looked at specifically: Hacking things together to get at
least building was a good start, but if you didn't install several other
packages the build would still succeed but with autoconf automatically
disabling several features.
Thats why i really like the way we've moved over the past 10 years or so
to explicitly only have a pretty small buildsys environment and almost
everything else needs to be explicitly required for building from the
respective packages.
Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
filelists. :)
Thanks & regards, Phil
--
Philipp Knirsch | Tel.: +49-711-96437-470
Manager Core Services | Fax.: +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH | Email: Phil Knirsch <pknirsch(a)redhat.com>
Wankelstrasse 5 | Web:
http://www.redhat.com/
D-70563 Stuttgart, Germany