util-linux missing from build root
mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam at arcor.de
Wed Aug 29 17:09:14 UTC 2007
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:58:25 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Seeing the suggestion that packagers should BR util-linux-ng triggered
> > my reaction. I feel that if more BR like that are needed "now", we
> > will see more path-based BR, too, and BR for fundamental tools like
> > cpp, gcc, gcc-c++, rpm-build, /bin/sh, ...
> Did you miss the last part of my mail where I gave an opportunity and a
> place to bring suggestions to growing the base set of packages we
No, I saw it, but the bureaucracy (and suggested discussion) is beyond
my time. This is the 2nd time in one week that a tool is missing in
the buildroots, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by FESCo. The original
definition of the minimal buildroot is void.
> What I don't want is reactionary "Oh this dep changed and $foo is no
> longer being dragged into the buildroot for me, better update the
> static list of what we ask for!"
Then why the silent modifications to the buildroot list?
The Exceptions list is and the explanations at the top of the
FullExceptionList page are void now, too.
More information about the devel