[Fedora-packaging] Proposal: Remove BuildRequires: exceptions from the guidelines

[Vít Ondruch]

The draft is still a bit wordy IMO.

For example, I don't understand why is there mentioned
redhat-rpm-config, since most people have no idea what this package is
good for (you can more or less count me in this group as well ;).
Patching stuff etc, you don't need to care who provides the
functionality, since it is hidden behind RPM macros. Most of the
dependencies from the current exception list are pulled in via RPM anyway.

Also this sentence "but even then keep in mind that you should still
double check your BuildRequires: because your package may still rely on
the particular makeup of the build environment." is just beating a dead
horse.

Otherwise big +1 for this change.


Vít


Dne 12.2.2015 v 17:38 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
> TL;DR: There's a proposal for nuking the list of BuildRequires
> exceptions from the packaging guidelines.
>
> Important note: this is just an idea.  We're not currently changing the
> guidelines based on this.  Nothing is set in stone.  It may end up that
> nothing happens.  Don't panic.
>
> A couple of times recently, people have floated proposals to the FPC
> about removing certain things from the buildroot.  (Specifically, perl
> and gcc*.)  And the bottom line for these is that while FPC tries to
> maintain a list of BuildRequires: exceptions, this is really up to
> releng and whatever rpm happens to pull in at any particular time.
>
> This means that whatever list FPC maintains, it's going to get outdated
> eventually, and giving packagers the idea that they don't have to
> actually specify all of their dependencies restricts what releng can do
> and, perhaps, what dependencies the RPM package can drop without
> breaking builds.
>
> So, the generally stated proposal:
>
> I would like to get FPC out of the business of specifying this list of
> exceptions, and instead just indicate that packagers should completely
> specify their dependencies.
>
> My specific proposal can be seen in
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497; the draft is at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/BuildReqDraft2.  You can use
> the history tab to see the differences between that and the current
> guidelines.
>
> Now, the real issue is in what packagers can depend upon.  Obviously you
> have RPM and an environment necessary to build a package (which means
> you have to have a shell to execute the scripts that make up the RPM
> sections, and redhat-rpm-config, and whatever RPM happens to use to
> execute %patch, which I guess could be some internal library if the RPM
> devs wanted).  But what else?  That's the open question.
>
> The draft currently says:
>
> ---
> You may assume that you have everything necessary for RPM to function
> and process your spec file (so of course RPM is present, along with
> redhat-rpm-config and what is necessary for RPM to apply patches, unpack
> archives, and run the shell scripts which make up the spec file
> sections.) You should not assume any other packages are present, as RPM
> dependencies and anything brought into the buildroot by the build system
> may change over time.
> ---
>
> Honestly, I'm not completely satisfied with that but I can't come up
> with anything better.  Polite discussion is welcomed and encouraged.
>
>  - J<
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging