Remove gcc, gcc-c++ and make from minimal build root

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Jan 13 07:12:53 UTC 2015


On 01/13/2015 07:12 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> On Tue 13 Jan 2015 01:35:26 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
>>> minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
>>> dependencies, etc.
>>
>> -1, all the serious software requires gcc, gcc-c++ and make to build.
>>
>> I actually think that cmake should be added to the minimal build root,
>> instead of removing stuff. Almost all the packages I work on BuildRequire
>> cmake (which also implies that they need make to build, and gcc-c++ is the
>> typical implementation language).
>
> Yes good idea. I worked on Java packages. Let's put Maven in minimal
> buildroot. I am sure everyone will enjoy it.
>
> Sorry for the sarcasm. Couldn't resist :-)
>
> Seriously though what's a problem with listing your package's real build
> requires?

I basically see several issues:

1. The sheer amount of packages being affect.

Though I also think the ratio of scripted/compiled package has changed 
towards scripted languages, I do not think the number of compiled 
packages has decreased in absolute numbers and still is very high.

2. The semantics of such a change.

To me, they are not clear, because having "gcc" or "gcc-c++" in a build 
root covers multiple use-cases.
For many packages, they just satisfy the need for an arbitrary "c"/"c++" 
compiler, but actually do not mean a strict requirement to have 
"gcc"/"g++". Similarly, they may exist packages which actually have 
dependencies on something which currently is being pulled in indirectly 
through gcc (say libgcc), while the package doesn't actually depend on a 
c-compiler.

3. There likely are many tiny problems under the hood (esp. in packages 
primarily written in scripted languages), such as (yet unknown and 
hidden) conditionally built features/sub-components/sub-packages and 
conditional deps etc.

I.e. though I am in favor of minimising the buildroots, I don't expect 
removing gcc/g++ will become an easy effort nor should it be taken 
light-heartedly.

Ralf





More information about the devel mailing list