On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org> wrote:
On 12/11/13 14:22, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> Dne 12.11.2013 13:42, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 12:54, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I see more often then I would like that some packages get
> into Fedora and immediately appears among broken
> dependencies, since
> they were pushed into Fedora sooner then their dependencies.
> So I propose to add one additional bullet into reviewer
> guidelines :
> "Package has to have satisfied all its dependencies prior it
> is approved."
> Hopefully somebody will notice next time during review ....
> *Sigh* it's another case of something so obvious that nobody
> it needed to be spelled out before, but apparently it's
> necessary now,
> so +1.
> Better would be if it is technically impossible, but I have no idea
> how to achieve that :/ Actually, the script which creates the
> dist-git repo could check the .spec file and availability in Fedora
> and deny to create repo without satisfied dependencies, but it seems
> to be a bit overkill.
> Hmm, is it usefull to have Requires, that are not installed on build
> time? If a package has a Requires on something, and doesn't need it on
> build time, build time is faster as the installation can be saved. But
> other than that, it shouldn't hurt to just blindly install the requires
> also on buildtime and in such cases it would fail.
> Are there other reasons except saving some installation time for not
> installing the requires on build time?
There can be cases where packages run-require each other but don't
build-require each other (which would of course be circular build
Yeah... Right... Never mind...