Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org> writes:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:43:19 -0800
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:10:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ whinging about python-psycopg2 ]
> Without python3 installed, macros in the spec file can't be
expanded
> correctly (because their definitions depend on python3). The spec
> file is BuildRequireing python3 so it shouldn't be expected that you
> can operate on the spec file without python3 installed.
I'd prefer to see specs a bit more robust so that for instance
you
could run "spectool" on them to download upstream sources and then do a
mockbuild, which wouldn't require python3 or whatever to be installed
on the build host.
Precisely. There are *lots* of situations where we expect to be able
to parse specfiles without necessarily having all their buildreqs
installed (for the most obvious case: to find out what BRs are needed).
I think one of the goals of this guideline should be to prevent creep
in the set of packages that have to be present before tools like fedpkg
will operate on a specfile without complaint.
regards, tom lane