Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 21 February 2018 at 09:53, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net&gt; 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.


>  on the other hand there is no point to have GCC in the buildroot when
> you as
>  exmaple build phpMyAdmin which is just a bunch of textfiles 
I understand that clearly. What I don't understand is if if gcc-c++
always pulls in gcc-cc.. why do I need to add that to my manifest?
What is the point of having a libsolver if I have to define what those
things must depend upon to work?

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

[Igor Gnatenko]

-----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&gt;
>  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.

>  > on the other hand there is no point to have GCC in the
> buildroot
>  > when you as
>  > exmaple build phpMyAdmin which is just a bunch of textfiles
>  
>  I understand that clearly. What I don't understand is if if gcc-c++
>  always pulls in gcc-cc.. why do I need to add that to my manifest?
>  What is the point of having a libsolver if I have to define what
>  those
>  things must depend upon to work? 
Ask yourself following questions: Do I use g++ myself? Do I use gcc
myself?

If answer is yes and yes, then list both. If your tool uses just g++,
but there is something else inside using gcc, you just list gcc-c++.
- -- 
Igor Gnatenko
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqOdDQACgkQaVcUvRu8
> X0w9/A/+ONHdx5yTYpVC+kgUHwHSaCv1mfDCZXgoCTQ8kHM8EQvUx2zzsfxmernm
> kp4xsSHomVmDQ+ftWNV3Qm/ULK7ReQRvjf0JMdtnoK0iLGGOSH1fp8tEtUq3Xnn4
> HoWT4pPwIQun+fF3fnd2oJoudCOu9Yrb9o9s3TQhHRSdYxOpCn8Wmv70sum8ulon
> V0y8g+BqTM5izl/bg/a9bSo7hXlJEk6ohYQgag0eKA1vBIqGE8WaqiopDXEJMLBz
> 0C1wQEjogsnqfbVZVj4+9ZN6x9rvcyz6OMxy5z6oObnLlMvPfmfq3DfA/bu1ABcq
> O01eMoio5EYKmRKd1XBhbqZ7+43tot32OTOEwTaUcs3a6XR+BUnzaSDN1EnTWTh5
> sCgo/men1psu+og0hqaJkf8UqcWyPzvv01f5WMQxAZyzC3yCNfeCm5P0AGaUcMnp
> qesi8kNUkTWkB3YNtoWNoslDLexAbMO/yEXpq4Co+eVkKECsZRvBd3AHS5QH+Ot/
> 4C1jjR8HbFq59Ki8nNTouk17Nup1WwNp7iSrPAjsUxkpXWOLFIlfidnzXByvqq0i
> tjaBagqrk22bKaxlroZpF2y2fxmPHypXIUeCiyPllkDIWGgpuXK5CYUzJpykRtzK
> E6DxHV6jYHqeMX7/H6KrvlcC1dwhE6M7r32f20U3HDqs6SPnLuw=
> =gLQH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 22 February 2018 at 02:41, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 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&gt;
> > 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.

[ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>  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. 
"It is important that your package list all necessary build
dependencies using the BuildRequires: tag. You may assume that enough
of an environment exists for RPM to function, to build packages and
execute basic shell scripts, but you should not assume any other
packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the
buildroot by the build system may change over time." [1]

This is not _too_ precise, but I think that's OK. It's pretty clear
that a compiler is not necessary "for RPM to function, to build packages
and execute basic shell scripts".

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Build-Time_Dependenci...

Zbyszek

[ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 22 February 2018 at 10:47, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>  "It is important that your package list all necessary build
>  dependencies using the BuildRequires: tag. You may assume that enough
>  of an environment exists for RPM to function, to build packages and
>  execute basic shell scripts, but you should not assume any other
>  packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the
>  buildroot by the build system may change over time." [1]
>
>  This is not _too_ precise, but I think that's OK. It's pretty clear
>  that a compiler is not necessary "for RPM to function, to build packages
>  and execute basic shell scripts".
>  
OK this is a problem on my part. I have taken sections which have
MUST/WILL/SHOULD in them to be done and I have taken ones without that
as general guidance. To me that section said it was ok to not list
gcc-cc if you knew it had to be there gcc-c++ would have to pull it
in. It is a should not a SHOULD and not a must or MUST. I will correct
my reading of this from now on.


>  [1]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Build-Time_Dependenci...
>
>  Zbyszek
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen
> <smooge(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: 
SJS> OK this is a problem on my part. I have taken sections which have
SJS> MUST/WILL/SHOULD in them to be done and I have taken ones without
SJS> that as general guidance.

Unfortunately the guidelines simply do not consistently capitalize
SHOULD/MUST (and MAY, in the few places where it appears).  New things
should have the yelling legalese but older sections probably won't.  I
fix them when I come across them but it's sadly not as simple as running
sed across the whole thing.

I did fix up the specific example mentioned here.

 - J<

[ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

[Florian Weimer]

On 02/21/2018 04:51 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>  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
>  ... 
kernel and systemd do not actually have to be in the buildroot.  systemd 
is needed only by some packages, I think, and the kernel probably never. 
  It's like mock or dnf—just because it's used to drive the build, it 
doesn't necessarily have to be in the buildroot.

bash and glibc are what Debian would call essential or build-essential. 
(I don't think we have a precise definition of that, though.)

Thanks,
Florian