Implicit/minimum buildrequires

[Paul Nasrat]

I was wondering if there was any policy doc on BuildRequires for Red Hat
rpms, I've been playing with mach and severn srpms from fedora CVS and
due to the very minimal nature of the mach environment I get missing
BuildRequires.

I'm aware of the policy for fedora which seems slightly stricter than
that for Red Hat rpms.

Is there a document or guide for the minimal build environment for
building Red Hat rpms, or should missing BuildRequires go straight to
bugzilla.

This would be useful from two perspectives - using mach to build
severn/cambridge in an consistent environment, secondly as a start to
trying to bootstrap severn from an SRPM/CVS repository it'd be a useful
crib sheet.

As an example:

bash requires byacc and texinfo to build successfully in a severn mach
environment.

Paul

[Owen Taylor]

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 07:03, Paul Nasrat wrote:
>  I was wondering if there was any policy doc on BuildRequires for Red
> Hat
>  rpms, I've been playing with mach and severn srpms from fedora CVS and
>  due to the very minimal nature of the mach environment I get missing
>  BuildRequires.
>  
>  I'm aware of the policy for fedora which seems slightly stricter than
>  that for Red Hat rpms.
>  
>  Is there a document or guide for the minimal build environment for
>  building Red Hat rpms, or should missing BuildRequires go straight to
>  bugzilla. 
Generally, the policy is that all BuildRequires should be there. So,
feel free to Bugzilla anything you find missing. Well, within reason ...
maybe not BuildRequires: /bin/sh.

Regards,
						Owen

[Elliot Lee]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Paul Nasrat wrote:

>  As an example:
>  
>  bash requires byacc and texinfo to build successfully in a severn mach
>  environment. 
The general rule I try to follow is "anything not contained in the
Development or Base installer groups", not that it's wrong to BuildRequire
one of the packages that _is_ listed in those components.

-- Elliot

[Warren Togami]

http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires

The old Fedora Linux project had this tool and document for detecting
missing BuildRequires.  We considered only a very short list as
exceptions to BuildRequires, but all else should be added IMHO.

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:41:21AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>  http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires
>  
>  The old Fedora Linux project had this tool and document for detecting
>  missing BuildRequires.  We considered only a very short list as
>  exceptions to BuildRequires, but all else should be added IMHO. 
I'd say the exceptions list needs to be larger, stuff like
coreutils, glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders, bzip2
certainly need to be in (ideally as real dependencies of rpm-build
package).

	Jakub

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep 22, 2003, Jakub Jelinek <jakub(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders 
Why would you need these to install a package that is say just a set
of shell scripts?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:57:53PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>  On Sep 22, 2003, Jakub Jelinek <jakub(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders
>  
>  Why would you need these to install a package that is say just a set
>  of shell scripts? 
They should be recorded somewhere.
There is not much point of installing rpm-build if you don't want to build
packages (otherwise you just need rpm). And to build any package, you need
the minimal set of packages needed for building...

	Jakub

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep 22, 2003, Jakub Jelinek <jakub(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:57:53PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 2003, Jakub Jelinek <jakub(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > 
> > > glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders
> > 
> > Why would you need these to install a package that is say just a set
> > of shell scripts? 
Err...  Sorry, I meant `to build a package'

>  There is not much point of installing rpm-build if you don't want
> to build
>  packages 
Right.  The point is that building packages doesn't necessarily mean
compiling.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

[Michael Schwendt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:50:08 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

>  On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:41:21AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>  > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires
>  > 
>  > The old Fedora Linux project had this tool and document for detecting
>  > missing BuildRequires.  We considered only a very short list as
>  > exceptions to BuildRequires, but all else should be added IMHO.
>  
>  I'd say the exceptions list needs to be larger, stuff like
>  coreutils, glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders, bzip2
>  certainly need to be in (ideally as real dependencies of rpm-build
>  package). 
The docs are incomplete and lack a short explanation on build
requirements which are dependencies of core packages. Packages which
are considered fundamental for the Fedora build environment also
belong to that list.

The "fedora-rpmdevtools" packages pulls in a few additional packages
which in turn pull in even more dependencies.

  $ rpm -qR fedora-rpmdevtools
  bzip2  
  config(fedora-rpmdevtools) = 0:0.0.20-0.fdr.1
  cpio  
  diffutils  
  gcc  
  gcc-c++  
  gzip  
  make  
  patch  
  python  
  redhat-rpm-config  
  rpm-build  
  rpm-python  
  rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  sed  
  tar  

- -- 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/b0g40iMVcrivHFQRAlC/AJ9ZCn+JILdYkh5mYtfHGo+YBndF6wCfYr4H
> TdLwVTmnU4uJ2qXKiaHp4JE=
> =nXH1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:04:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>  >> Why would you need these to install a package that is say
> just a set
>  >> of shell scripts?
>  
>  Err...  Sorry, I meant `to build a package'
>  
>  > There is not much point of installing rpm-build if you don't want to build
>  > packages
>  
>  Right.  The point is that building packages doesn't necessarily mean
>  compiling. 
Sure, but 95% of packages need compiling.
So, either you save disk space for the very rare case somebody will be
only building the 5% of packages and have to add all the usual build requirements
to the 95% of packages (wasting disk space in those src.rpm's), or you
do what I proposed (or have the status-quo, ie. the usual build requirements
aren't recorded anywhere and it is unclear what they really are).

	Jakub

[Elliot Lee]

On 22 Sep 2003, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>  > There is not much point of installing rpm-build if you don't
> want to build
>  > packages
>  
>  Right.  The point is that building packages doesn't necessarily mean
>  compiling. 
Jakub's point may be that there needs to be some way of enforcing the
dependencies that constitute a 'minimum build environment' that other
packages can assume to be present when building.

-- Elliot
Addiction is anything that offers itself as the solution for the problems 
it causes.

[Michael Schwendt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:00:14 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

>  There is not much point of installing rpm-build if you don't want
> to build
>  packages (otherwise you just need rpm). And to build any package, you need
>  the minimal set of packages needed for building... 
Good example is "make" which is an implicit build requirement of
almost every package, but which is neither required by rpm-build nor
by any other fundamental package:

$ rpm -q --whatrequires make /usr/bin/make
fedora-rpmdevtools-0.0.20-0.fdr.1
fedora-rpm-helper-0.02-0.fdr.1
redhat-lsb-1.3-1

$ rpm --redhatrequires make /usr/bin/make
efax-0.9-18
kdevelop-2.1.5-6
mod_ssl-2.0.40-21
nss_db-2.2-20
openldap-servers-2.0.27-8
stunnel-4.04-3
ypserv-2.6-2
redhat-lsb-1.3-1

So, basically one would need to put "Buildrequires: make" or similar
into every src.rpm. Because on a build machine, you could uninstall
the packages listed above easily (even redhat-lsb). fedora-rpmdevtools
makes sure, "make" is available on a build host. 

It's a similar thing with gcc, gcc-c++. You wouldn't want to make a
C/C++ compiler an explicit build requirement in every C/C++ package.

- -- 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/b06T0iMVcrivHFQRAhGNAJ9mzYsgokKsfaM3WXxOSHRqoXwNmwCdHEVR
> Rc7f9uPr5PKCekKLrsXN1jQ=
> =kOwR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep 22, 2003, Elliot Lee <sopwith(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On 22 Sep 2003, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > There is not much point of installing rpm-build if you don't want to build
> > > packages
> > 
> > Right.  The point is that building packages doesn't necessarily mean
> > compiling. 
>  Jakub's point may be that there needs to be some way of enforcing
> the
>  dependencies that constitute a 'minimum build environment' that other
>  packages can assume to be present when building. 
Well...  If glibc-devel is to be present, then I guess so should gcc
and binutils.  Otherwise I fail to see the point.

Maybe we need a BuildNoPrereq: for the rare exceptions?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

[Nils Philippsen]

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:50, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>  On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:41:21AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>  > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires
>  > 
>  > The old Fedora Linux project had this tool and document for detecting
>  > missing BuildRequires.  We considered only a very short list as
>  > exceptions to BuildRequires, but all else should be added IMHO.
>  
>  I'd say the exceptions list needs to be larger, stuff like
>  coreutils, glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders, bzip2
>  certainly need to be in (ideally as real dependencies of rpm-build
>  package). 
Hmm, I'd rather like C-specific stuff (glibc-devel, glibc-headers,
glibc-kernheaders) being dependencies on a "C Development" meta package
containing only the dependencies on those packages along with gcc, etc.
rpm-build shouldn't depend on more than it really needs to run
(coreutils, bzip2, gzip, anything else?).

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp(a)redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Jakub Jelinek <jakub(a)redhat.com&gt; said:
>  I'd say the exceptions list needs to be larger, stuff like
>  coreutils, glibc-devel, glibc-headers, glibc-kernheaders, bzip2
>  certainly need to be in (ideally as real dependencies of rpm-build
>  package). 
Except in special cases, packages shouldn't explicitly list glibc-devel
and such.  That makes it real annoying for those of use that use RPM as
a cross-platform software management tool. :-)

One question: with Fedora, would anyone be interested in the changes
I've had to make to get packages more portable (and, in my case, working
on HPAQ Tru64 Unix)?  Most of the changes I made were spec file
cleanups.
-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net&gt;
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

[Wil Cooley]

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 18:11, Chris Adams wrote:

>  One question: with Fedora, would anyone be interested in the changes
>  I've had to make to get packages more portable (and, in my case, working
>  on HPAQ Tru64 Unix)?  Most of the changes I made were spec file
>  cleanups. 
Often I've thought it would be really cool to have an up-to-date set of
OSS packages for AIX and Solaris; these kinds of clean-ups and someone
with the hardware and time to pay attention to them would be really
nice.  Currently many (most?) people install IBM's RPMs on AIX and
Sunfreewareorg's PKGs on Solaris; having a set that was consistent with
Fedora Linux would be a great boon.  OTOH, there are not doubt issues
between installing into /usr and /opt.

Wil
-- 
Wil Cooley                                 wcooley(a)nakedape.cc
Naked Ape Consulting                        http://nakedape.cc
* * * * * *  Linux Services for Small Businesses  * * * * * *
*       Easy, reliable solutions for small businesses       *
*    Naked Ape Business Server http://nakedape.cc/r/sms     *

[Paul Nasrat]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:11:21PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
 
>  One question: with Fedora, would anyone be interested in the changes
>  I've had to make to get packages more portable (and, in my case, working
>  on HPAQ Tru64 Unix)?  Most of the changes I made were spec file
>  cleanups. 
I haven't used it myself but this seems to fit closely with the aims of
openpkg project:

http://www.openpkg.org/

Although they don't currently list Tru64, I'm sure they'd be more than
happy for contributions :)

Paul

[Paul Nasrat]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:05:25PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>  On Sep 22, 2003, Elliot Lee <sopwith(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: 
>  > Jakub's point may be that there needs to be some way of
> enforcing the
>  > dependencies that constitute a 'minimum build environment' that other
>  Well...  If glibc-devel is to be present, then I guess so should gcc
>  and binutils.  Otherwise I fail to see the point. 
I believe Jakub was referring to adding to the exceptions from the
fedora wiki which could go on to form a "core"[1] or minimum build
environment (as they do with fedora-rpmdevtools.  

http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires

rpm-build
gcc
gcc-c++
redhat-rpm-config
diffutils
make
patch
tar

>  Maybe we need a BuildNoPrereq: for the rare exceptions?  
Hmm, the only times I can see this being usefull is if you only build
packages that are not compiled (pure perl/python/shell) or for trying to
selfbootstrap certain packages.

The idea, as I follow it is to have rpm-build or some meta build package
cf fedora-rpmdevtools Require the minimal environment.  That would at
least provide a good starting point for a policy or an automated
buildreq generation/supplemental tool.  There would be theoretically
nothing stopping you from installing @Core @Base and rpm-build with eg
python-devel, and your packages would probably have no additional
BuildRequires for shell scripts only.

Paul
[1] Lets all overload the word core as much as possible :)

[Michael Schwendt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:11:21 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:

>  One question: with Fedora, would anyone be interested in the changes
>  I've had to make to get packages more portable (and, in my case, working
>  on HPAQ Tru64 Unix)?  Most of the changes I made were spec file
>  cleanups. 
Could you be more specific? What "cleanups" do you mean? RPM macros
like %{__make} maybe?

- -- 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/b/7C0iMVcrivHFQRAvH2AJ9jnWdRwe8U+KXDzTYkuNd7Tvhw7ACfSTt4
> RjdgUr17Cb2dJCxLNpKvvyY=
> =xhvp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mar 23/09/2003 à 10:05, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:11:21 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>  
>  > One question: with Fedora, would anyone be interested in the changes
>  > I've had to make to get packages more portable (and, in my case, working
>  > on HPAQ Tru64 Unix)?  Most of the changes I made were spec file
>  > cleanups.
>  
>  Could you be more specific? What "cleanups" do you mean? RPM macros
>  like %{__make} maybe? 
I can't speak for Fedora but if you're interested in spec janitorial
stuff we at JPackage (http://jpackage.org/) would welcome you with open
hands;)

(BTW while JPackage is not interested in an outright merger like
fedora.us - we also have Mandrake members/users - further efforts to
make our packages more Fedora-compatible are possible. There is little
or no overlap with Rawhide/Fedora.us packaging right now since we only
do java stuff)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot