On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 19:32 +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:49:15PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > In my opinion this move would place a significant burden upon > > downstreams and users while taking very little burden away from > > upstream developers because, regardless of whether or not build time > > checks are performed, the task of maintaining the list of runtime > > dependencies in *some* form still falls upon upstream: you would just > > have changed it from updating three files to updating two. > > I would say that nobody is arguing about the responsibility of providing > list of runtime dependencies. In fact IMHO the ideal solution would be > to have a complete list of all our dependencies with links to the > respective upstream projects to make it clear. > [...] > > For downstream maintainers having a list of dependencies is IMO way > better then running the build system several times to figure out what > else they need to add to the package dependencies in order to > successfully build the package. Obviously this applies to non-RPM based > distributions. If we take this opportunity to take stock of all the existing, non-library runtime dependencies and document them accurately in a document that's also going to be kept up-to-date going forward, then most of my concerns are mitigated. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
