On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 05:03, Erik LaBianca wrote: > > "mach" is not mandatory. I've tried it once, long ago. Use what works > for > > you. It can be embarrassing if an approved package fails in the build > > system. > > Ok so it's not mandatory but it seems the sanest way to check > buildrequires. Is it used for the fedora.us buildsystem or not? Yes. And no :) A patched version of mach is a part of that beast, documentation, patches etc about the current system are at http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~ensc/fedora.us-build/ > It > doesn't make much sense to me for packages to pass QA that can't be > built properly on the build system. As pointed out elsewhere, fedora-rmdevelrpms from the fedora-rpmdevtools package does a fairly good job (from the QA POV, not necessarily otherwise) as well.
